Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures to support and protect a vulnerable adult. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault as nobody raised safeguarding concerns to the Council and no safeguarding concerns were obvious to Council officers. The Council has apologised to the complainant for failures in staffing and displaying contact numbers making it difficult for him to contact the Council in an emergency. The Council has acted to improve its future service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to safeguard his relative, Mr C. Mr B says the Council missed opportunities to realise an individual, X, was coercing Mr C and had moved into his property. Mr B says the Council failed to help when he tried to raise concerns and has failed to properly respond to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. Mr C has died, we have accepted Mr B as a suitable representative.
4. 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))

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr C lived independently in sheltered housing and had capacity to make his own decisions. The Council was aware of Mr C’s friendship with X but says there was no evidence X had moved into Mr C’s property or of decline in Mr C’s wellbeing. The Council says no concerns were raised about Mr C and X during Mr C’s lifetime, and so there was no safeguarding involvement. The Council is the local safeguarding authority which means it is responsible to protect adults with care and support needs from abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Because Mr C had capacity to make his own decisions, he could make decisions which others might think are unwise.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s safeguarding involvement with this case. There is nothing to suggest any safeguarding concern during Mr C’s lifetime, and after he died there was no role to safeguard Mr C. Even if the Council’s safeguarding team was involved the outcome may have been the same, as Mr C could choose to make decisions others think are unwise. The Council has advised Mr B he could contact the police with any concerns about X.
9. The Council accepted some fault where Mr B had tried to make contact. It explains officers were not always present at Mr C’s sheltered housing accommodation, and the signage for contact telephone numbers could be improved. The Council will improve the signage and has recruited a permanent member of staff for this accommodation. The Council apologised to Mr B for his distress.
10. The Council could not help the police with enquiries about Mr C’s death because its CCTV monitor was not working and so it could not view the footage. By the time it was fixed the relevant CCTV footage was deleted. The Council should consider whether there is a way to save relevant CCTV footage when it knows it may be needed for complaint or police investigations.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation and responses to the complaint. The circumstances in which Mr B found out about Mr C’s death, and of Mr C’s situation in the months prior was distressing. This was compounded by not being able to contact the Council for help, finding out there was no CCTV footage available, and then delays responding to his complaint. The Council has apologised to Mr B for his distress. Mr B wants ‘compensation’ but I am satisfied the Council has acknowledged the impact on Mr B and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve much more so I do not consider an investigation is justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman