Essex County Council (24 010 438)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying its safeguarding investigation into his wife Mrs X’s fall during a care home respite stay, delaying in giving him some documents, officers not replying to some contacts and not disclosing other documents to him. Investigation of the fall incident would not add to the Council’s investigation nor achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient unremedied personal injustice to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take the document disclosure issue to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
- Mr X is Mrs X’s husband. In spring 2024 Mrs X had a respite stay at a care home, Loganberry Lodge. She fell during her stay. Mr X raised the fall as a safeguarding report with the Council. He complains the Council:
- delayed in investigating the safeguarding report he made about the fall;
- delayed in providing documents to him;
- failed to reply to some of his calls and messages;
- would not disclose other documents to him.
- Mr X says the matter has caused him worry, stress and sleeplessness. He says he could not work out some contradictory information about Mrs X’s fall or put his views across properly at a safeguarding meeting because he had not been seen all the documents. Mr X says Mrs X still needs a walking frame after her fall.
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:
- we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
- further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
- there is another body better placed to consider a complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
- The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the ICO.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The incident which started the Council’s safeguarding process here was Mr X’s report of Mrs X’s fall during her care home respite stay. The Council completed that investigation, which did not find evidence of neglect or abuse. An investigation of the care home incident by us could not add to the Council’s investigation of the available evidence nor result in a different outcome.
- Mr X’s complaint to us focuses on the Council’s administration of the safeguarding process. The Council accepts there was delay in its investigation and has apologised to Mr X. It also accepts it delayed in providing some documents to Mr X and that officers did not reply to some of his contacts. We recognise Mr X was caused some avoidable worry and upset by these issues. But the apology the Council has provided is the remedy we would have sought for those impacts here if we were to investigate, so resolves this part of the complaint. We understand Mr X felt unprepared at a meeting as part of the safeguarding investigation because he had not received all documents by then. Officers offered a further discussion with him after giving him the documents. After considering that information, Mr X may have taken up the Council’s offer to pose any other questions he had about its investigation. There is insufficient ongoing injustice from the investigation process to Mr X here to justify us investigating.
- We note Mr X says Mrs X has an injustice because she is now using a walking frame. The safeguarding investigation dealt with Mrs X’s fall and found no neglect or abuse leading to it. As explained above, we could not add to the Council’s safeguarding investigation or reach a different outcome. The delays and other issues with the Council’s administration of its safeguarding process are not related to or the cause of any effects of the fall on Mrs X.
- Mr X has also complained the Council did not disclose to him all documents about Mrs X’s respite stay. The Council says the safeguarding investigation considered all information in the care home’s documents, but because they are not Council‑produced documents officers determined they could not be disclosed to Mr X under GDPR. The ICO is the body created by national government to consider data protection and disclosure issues and apply the relevant laws and guidance. If Mr X wishes to pursue this issue he may wish to take it to the ICO. If Mr X disagrees with any ICO decision notice on his matter, he would then have an appeal right to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). It would be reasonable for Mr X to take this issue to the ICO because its expertise mean it is the body better placed to consider it, and because its decision would provide him with a right of appeal.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
- investigation of Mrs X’s fall by us could not add to the Council’s safeguarding investigation nor result in a different outcome; and
- there is insufficient unremedied significant personal injustice to Mr or Mrs X from the Council’s safeguarding process to warrant us investigating; and
- it would be reasonable for him to pursue the document disclosure issue to the ICO.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman