Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council had a duty to investigate concerns it received and keep the vulnerable adult safe. That had an impact on the complainant but was not because of Council fault.

The complaint

1. Mr C was concerned about the care of his wife (Ms D) at the residential care home where she lived. The family raised a safeguarding concern. The Care Provider also raised a safeguarding concern about Mr C’s behaviour towards Ms D. The Care Provider restricted Mr C’s visiting times and his visits had to be supervised while the Council investigated. Mr C is upset he lost time with Ms D, at what turned out to be near the end of her life.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 has a duty to protect a vulnerable adult’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. This is safeguarding. When the Council receives a concern about a vulnerable adult it must make necessary enquiries about the concern and act to keep the adult safe.
6. The Council followed its safeguarding process about all concerns it received from the family and from professionals involved with Ms D’s care. The Council acted to keep Ms D safe. There was no delay in the Council’s safeguarding enquiries.
7. While it was undoubtedly upsetting for Mr C to be the subject of a safeguarding enquiry, and to have restricted and monitored visits to Ms D, the purpose was in the best interests of Ms D and was not fault.
8. The Council also properly dealt with concerns about Ms D’s care and had a meeting with family (including Mr C), to give its findings.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. The Council had a duty to consider the safeguarding allegations it received and keep Ms D safe. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman