Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled concerns it received relating to Mrs X’s caring role. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, or injustice caused by events, to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council made unfounded allegations about her as her husband’s carer, without telling her or giving her the opportunity to defend herself. She says the Council then delayed holding a meeting for eight months, by which time her husband had died and the person who recorded the allegations was no longer employed by the Council. Mrs X says these events caused significant distress for both her and her husband. She wants the Council to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received and considered safeguarding concerns raised by health professionals, relating to Mrs X’s role as carer for her husband. It held a meeting in mid-2022 which Mrs X was not party to. The Council decided not to progress the matter to formal safeguarding enquiries. It therefore did not directly discuss the concerns with Mrs X or her husband.
6. The statutory guidance explains councils must make enquiries if they reasonably suspect an adult with needs for care and support and cannot protect themselves is, or is at risk of, being abused or neglected. It explains that when a council decides to carry out enquiries, it should at that point begin by asking the vulnerable adult for their views (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, 14.76 and 14.93)
7. It is not fault for professionals to discuss concerns privately in the first instance. There is also no specific requirement for councils to discuss concerns with the vulnerable person and the person allegedly responsible for the risk in cases where they decide a person is not at risk of abuse or neglect. The Council did not decide to progress to formal safeguarding enquiries, which means it had already decided there was insufficient evidence that Mrs X’s husband was at risk of abuse or neglect. It was not fault for it not to have sought Mrs X’s views. One of the key principles of safeguarding is proportionality, i.e. the least intrusive response appropriate to the risk presented. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, 14.13)
8. When Mrs X became aware of the concerns around three months later, she says she and her husband experienced significant distress. It is naturally distressing to become aware of such allegations being made about yourself. However, the allegations themselves were the source of Mrs X’s and her husband’s distress, and we could not say the Council was at fault for recording and considering allegations. Mrs X’s distress was not caused by any fault, but was a natural consequence of being the subject of concerns. The Council’s decision not to discuss the matter with Mrs X sooner did not affect the end outcome, and so there was not significant injustice caused to Mrs X.
9. Mrs X’s complaint is also about the length of delay in the Council arranging a meeting with her as part of the complaints process. The Council has acknowledged there were delays and further investigation by us would not add value or change the outcome. In any event, we would not usually investigate complaints processes alone, as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints processes when we will not be investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of both fault and injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman