Brighton & Hove City Council (24 009 054)
Category : Adult care services > Safeguarding
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 20 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information about Ms X. The Council has apologised for its adult services not having contacted Ms X to discuss allegations received from its library services. There is insufficient evidence of other fault by the Council, and its apology is sufficient.
The complaint
- Ms X complained:
- the Council’s library services shared false and defamatory claims about her with adult services; and
- the Council’s adult services then shared the claims with other agencies without having first checked their validity.
- Ms X said this caused her significant distress and meant a library ban was wrongly extended. She wanted the Council to apologise, pay her a financial remedy and restore her library access.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Actions by the Council’s library services
- We could not say the allegations the Council’s library services shared with adult services are false or defamatory. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the alleged events happened, and Ms X’s account differs from library services’.
- The Council’s library services shared information with adult services so that support for Ms X could be considered. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation into the actions of the Council’s library services.
Actions by the Council’s adult services
- The Council’s adult services considered the information. Its role was to decide whether it should take action to safeguard Ms X. It decided the information did not show risk of abuse or neglect to Ms X. However, the information included concerns about Ms X’s mental health, so it shared the information with her GP. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision.
- The Council acknowledged in its complaint response that the social worker should have contacted Ms X before making a decision. The Council apologised to Ms X.
- The Council’s apology is sufficient to recognise the impact of this fault on Ms X. The fault identified did not cause Ms X’s library ban to have been extended. The Council would also likely have still shared the information with Ms X’s GP even if it had spoken to her first. Therefore, this fault did not impact the outcome.
- There is insufficient evidence of fault, aside from the fault the Council already acknowledged. It is not therefore proportionate for us to investigate the actions of the Council’s adult services. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, aside from the fault the Council has already apologised for.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman