Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council followed the correct process to investigate a safeguarding alert. The Council has given thorough responses to the complainant about the outcome. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The main injustice claimed is not caused by the actions of the Council but is the actions of the care provider, which can be considered under a complaint against the provider.

The complaint

1. Ms D says although the Council found a care provider neglected her relative (Mr E) nobody has accepted responsibility or taken action to improve service. Ms D says Mr E’s life was shortened because of the neglect and it is upsetting for his family.

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
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, 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.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr E’s stay at a care home was privately arranged. Because the Council did not arrange the placement it was not responsible for the actions of the care provider. The Council’s involvement was as the safeguarding authority.
6. Adult safeguarding means protecting an adult's right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. The aims of adult safeguarding are to prevent harm and reduce the risk of abuse or neglect to adults with care and support needs.
7. The Council properly investigated and decided a safeguarding enquiry. The Council shared the outcome with relevant bodies to improve the providers practice, those being the Care Quality Commission and the Council’s quality team. The Council explained the outcome to Ms D and has responded thoroughly to her further enquiries, including giving explanations of its role and powers in this case. The Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.
8. Ms D wants some acknowledgement for the impact caused by the care provider’s neglect of her relative. This needs to come from the provider. As Mr E and his family arranged the care home, Ms D can make a complaint to the care provider and then to the Ombudsman. This is separate to this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation.
9. Ms D also says the neglect shortened Mr E’s life. This is not caused by any action of the Council. Whether Mr E’s life was shortened is not a finding the Ombudsman could ever make, only a coroner can decide this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. In addition, there is not enough injustice caused by the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. The main injustice is caused by the care provider’s actions which would need to be considered as a separate complaint against the provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman