Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her father. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not respond when she raised concerns her father (Mr Y) was abused in a care home. She says it passed her to another council that funded Mr Y’s care, instead of dealing with the matter. Mrs X says there were delays in the Council’s complaint-handling, and says she did not receive a response to her complaint, despite chasing the Council several times. Mrs X says the matter has caused significant distress. She wants the Council to provide apologies and explanations, and 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
• 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. Mr Y lived in a care home in this Council’s area. However, the Council did not commission his care. Another local authority (Council B) was responsible for meeting Mr Y’s care needs under the Care Act 2014. Council B held responsibility for any decisions about how Mr Y’s needs should be met and where he should live. This is because Mr Y was ‘ordinarily resident’ in Council B’s area.
6. When safeguarding concerns are raised about a vulnerable adult, the local authority with responsibility for carrying out safeguarding enquiries is the one where the alleged abuse has taken place. This Council, therefore, was responsible for investigating the concerns about abuse in Mr Y’s care home.
7. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (Section 42, Care Act 2014)
8. The Council consulted with several agencies and family members. Mr Y’s family then moved him from the care home, back to Council B’s area. At this point, the Council had no further role. This is because the aim of the safeguarding enquiry was to establish whether any action was needed to safeguard Mr Y, not to decide whether abuse had or had not occurred. When Mr Y was no longer living in the care home in the Council’s area, its enquiry finished.
9. Mrs X raised concerns about the substance of the care provider’s representations. It is understandable that she has experienced distress due to not receiving answers about what happened. However, this is not due to fault by the Council. We would not expect it to have continued investigating the matter after Mr Y was moved out of the care home, as any risk he was previously under had been removed. Furthermore, he was then not living in its area. Any ongoing issues of risk to Mr Y would have then been the responsibility of Council B.
10. It is naturally confusing for families when two separate local authorities are involved in a person’s case, and we would not expect a member of the public to immediately understand the different roles each would play in such circumstances. Mrs X experienced frustration because she felt both councils were passing responsibility back and forth. I am satisfied the Council did not, however, simply pass on its responsibilities to Council B. There is no evidence of fault.
11. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. The Council acknowledged it could have communicated more consistently with Mrs X during the safeguarding enquiry process. It has addressed this with the member of staff concerned. It is not proportionate for us to investigate this alone, as doing so would not add value or lead to a different outcome.
12. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will not therefore consider Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation, as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the substantive part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman