Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough injustice to the complainant to justify our involvement, nor is there a worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has failed to properly investigate a safeguarding concern; it has not taken account of relevant information and evidence before deciding. Mr B is disappointed and feels there is a slur on his character. Mr B wants the Council to apologise, to amend its findings, and to stop the actions it is taking.

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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council is the local safeguarding authority, which means it has a duty to protect vulnerable adults in its area from neglect or abuse.
6. Mr B is involved in the control of X’s finances. X is a vulnerable adult in the Council’s area. The Council had concerns about X’s finances so completed a safeguarding enquiry; the outcome was inconclusive. Despite this the Council’s concerns remain so it has acted to protect X from the risk of financial abuse by applying to the Court of Protection to become the deputy for X’s finances. Mr B will have an opportunity to tell the court his views about the control of X’s finances and the court will decide.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. I recognise Mr B’s disappointment and frustration at the way the Council conducted its enquiry, but I do not consider this enough injustice to justify the Ombudsman’s resource.
8. I also do not consider there is a worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation. Regardless of how the Council conducted the safeguarding enquiry and the decision it reached, the actions taken after that to protect X are likely to be the same. The Council did not find a clear risk to X, but despite this feels it is in X’s best interest for an independent party to control X’s finances. The Council’s duty is to X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement, nor a worthwhile outcome for us to achieve to commit our resource.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman