Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to enquiries by him and the coroner’s office. The Council has apologised for the delay, which is appropriate, and we could not add to its investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) a safeguarding concern relating to care his brother received before his death. He also complained there was a six month delay in the Council responding to enquiries made by the coroner’s office and delays in responding to his own enquiries. Mr X said that, as a result of the delays, the inquest into his brother’s death dragged on, which caused him uncertainty and distress.

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 organization.

(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 Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said the Council failed to report a safeguarding concern to CQC relating to the care his brother received before his death. In its complaint response, the Council said it had reported the matter to the CQC early in its safeguarding investigation, in line with its usual process.
6. Mr X complained the Council delayed responding to a request from the coroner’s office to report the matter to the CQC. In its complaint response, the Council said it had replied immediately to the request for it to confirm it had reported the matter to CQC. It said that, due to changes at the coroner’s office, the reply was mislaid and it sent a further copy, when the coroner requested this.
7. We will not consider the above complaints further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. Mr X also complained the Council delayed responding to his enquiries. In its complaint response, the Council said the officer had apologised for the delay and it offered a further apology. It explained the team had a statutory duty to prioritise safeguarding concerns, which sometimes meant other matters were delayed. The Council also accepted it was not appropriate for the officer complained about to respond to the complaint, for which it also apologised. We will not investigate this complaint further because the Council has already apologised, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is nothing further we can add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman