Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handled the safeguarding concerns about their grandmother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for handling Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns. This caused them frustration and upset. The Council has apologised and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the injustice caused by fault. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handed the safeguarding concerns they raised about their grandmother (Mrs Z). They say the matter has caused distress and upset and they are concerned about Mrs Z’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Safeguarding

6. 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)

What happened

7. Ms Y contacted the Council in November. She said she was concerned about Mrs Z’s carer and level of control he had over her. The Council spoke to Mr X the following day. Mr X provided further information about the safeguarding concerns. He said he and his family believed Mrs Z was the victim of financial abuse and coercive control.
8. The Council assigned a social worker to the case. The social worker called Mr X to discuss the case but there was no answer.
9. The social worker spoke to Mr X. The records state Mr X said he wanted Mrs Z to have a care needs assessment to identify her care needs. He said he still had concerns about Mrs Z’s carer. He said he would discuss the matter further with the family.
10. The social worker contacted Mr X several times over the next couple of weeks but there was no answer, or he was unavailable. She also contacted Mrs Z. The carer answered and he eventually reluctantly agreed to a home visit to assess Mrs Z’s needs.
11. The social worker contacted Ms Y and updated her about the conversation with the carer. She agreed the Council would consider a care needs assessment in the New Year and a mental capacity assessment for Mrs Z’s finances. She made a referral to the relevant team.
12. The social worker closed the safeguarding referral. She noted there was no evidence or proof of Mr X’s and Ms Y’s allegations, and the family had declined any further investigation. Mr X and Mr Y dispute this and say this is inaccurate. The social worker also noted Mr X and Ms Y had agreed for a care needs assessment and a mental capacity assessment for Mrs Z.
13. An officer from the team that deals with care needs assessments contacted the social worker and explained Mrs Z lived in a different authority (Council Z). The social worker told the officer to send the referral to Council Z.
14. The Council contacted Mr X in January and explained there was an administrative error and Council Z was the authority responsible for dealing with the matter.
15. Mr X emailed the social worker and said he was concerned conversations that took place between her and Ms Y were not on the system. He also said an officer told him Mrs Z was not at risk. He asked how she reached that outcome. He also said he wanted a call from Council Z. The social worker responded and said the family agreement was for an officer to visit Mrs Z at home to identify her care needs. Mr X responded and said she had not addressed his concerns about the missing records. He said he had spoken to Council Z, and it said it had received a request to complete a care needs assessment, but it had not received a safeguarding referral. He said he would speak to Council Z later that day to log a safeguarding concern.
16. Mr X complained to the Council about how it handled his and Ms Y’s safeguarding concerns. He said the social worker had expressed serious concerns the carer had prevented her from speaking to Mrs Z. The social worker had agreed to assess Mrs Z’s mental capacity and care needs. However, these conversations were not on Mrs Z’s records. He also said Council Z had read the file and said no further action was required other than a care needs assessment.
17. The Council responded to the Mr X’s complaint and said its administrative error meant there were delays with the right authority dealing with his and Ms Y’s concerns. It also said it failed to upload email and telephone contact onto the system. There was insufficient evidence at the point of the triage action to suggest Mrs Z could not make her own decisions about her care provision or that the care she receiving was abusive/neglectful. However, it should have explained its rationale more clearly in the case notes to back up this outcome. There was also a reliance on the care needs assessment revealing any concerns about the care provided when Mrs Z had not agreed to it. It said it made a referral to Council Z for complete a needs assessment for Mrs Z. As it had closed the safeguarding referral, him and Ms Y had to direct any ongoing concerns to Council Z.
18. The Council said it was sorry the process had been difficult for the family and sorry they had to raise their concerns. It said it had spoken to staff to prevent similar repeated occurrences of the administrative issues in his case. It also said it would feedback to its adult safeguarding team about the issues of good record keeping.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council has accepted it was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for dealing with Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns about Mrs Z. It has also accepted it was at fault for its record keeping and failing to provide clear rationale for its decision making. I agree the Council was at fault for how it has handled the matter. This has caused Mr X and Ms Y frustration and upset.
20. The Council has apologised and confirmed it has put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. In its responses to my enquiries, the Council also said it held a team meeting with staff in its adult safeguarding team about some of the issues in this case. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to address the injustice caused by fault. This is in line with our guidance on remedies. I do not recommend anything further.
21. Mr X said he wants the Council to take appropriate action to safeguard Mrs Z. He also says the Council’s delays means Mrs Z is now more at risk. The Council is not, and has never been, responsible for dealing with his concerns about Mrs Z. That is Council Z’s role. Therefore, I cannot recommended what Mr X is seeking. If the Council had not been at fault, it would have told Mr X and Ms Y at the outset they needed to contact Council Z. There was a seven-week delay before the Council told them this. However, we cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what would have happened in Mrs Z’s case but for the Council’s fault. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by fault in this case.

Back to top

Final Decision

22. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X and Ms Y an injustice. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy that injustice. I do not recommend anything further.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman