Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding and failing to communicate with the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The person receiving care support has capacity to make their own decisions about their care. The Council is not making the decisions or excluding the complainant. The Council has given a thorough written response to the concerns, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council fails to involve her in decision making about her relative, Ms C’s, care. Ms B has raised concerns about Ms C’s welfare, but feels the Council is shutting her out, won’t meet with her, and prevents her from visiting Ms C.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council is not responsible for Ms C’s care. Ms C is cared for by a relative and by privately arranged care workers. The Council is not making decisions about how Ms C’s care needs are met and is therefore not failing to involve Ms B in such decisions. These decisions are for Ms C and her family to resolve between themselves.
6. The Council was involved as the local safeguarding authority. Safeguarding adults is the process of protecting adults from abuse or neglect. The Council has met Ms C independently and assessed her to have capacity to make her own decisions about where to live. Ms C chooses to live with her relative even though she knows that might make seeing other family members, including Ms B, difficult. Under the Mental Capacity Act Ms C can make decisions which others might think are unwise.
7. The Police led an investigation into financial abuse and did not continue it, though Ms B says the police told her there may be a successful civil case. Ms B will need to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue that. Ms B is unhappy the Council took no further action under safeguarding. The Council assessed Ms C does not have capacity to manage her finances but did have capacity to appoint a power of attorney to act in her best interests. Therefore, Ms C’s risk going forward is protected by a power of attorney managing her finances and there is nothing to achieve by a safeguarding investigation.
8. When people are providing care to someone, the Council has a duty to assess their needs and provide support to them if necessary. To give Ms C’s relative a break from their caring role, Ms C may have regular breaks in a care home. Ms B can visit Ms C independently when she is on one of those breaks, the Council has arranged for Ms B to be told when these breaks are happening.
9. Ms B is unhappy the Council will not meet with her. The Council has no specific duty to Ms B. I am satisfied the Council has given a through response to Ms B, clearly explaining Ms C’s situation, and the role the Council has played. I understand Ms B’s distress at the limited contact she has with Ms C, and her concerns about Ms C’s wellbeing. But the Council has met independently with Ms C and assessed Ms C can make her own decisions about where to live. It is therefore Ms C’s decision making, and family issues, that is preventing Ms B from seeing Ms C, rather than any fault of the Council. We cannot tell the Council it must meet with Ms B; it is entitled to decide that is not an effective use of its resource.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The Council has responded to concerns about Ms C’s care and support and taken relevant safeguarding action such as advising Ms C on a power of attorney for finances, which is now in place. The only person the Council has a duty to discuss Ms C’s care with, is Ms C, as she has capacity to decide on her care. The Council should not share information with anyone else without Ms C’s consent. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman