Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised and failed to deal with her complaint. The Council delayed considering the safeguarding issues and referred Miss C to the commissioned service to complain. That delayed repayment to Miss B and caused Miss C distress. An apology, payment to Miss C and evidence of the action the Council has taken in response to the issues raised is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, is represented by Miss C. Miss C complained the Council:
• failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised about the service the Council commissioned paying £2,000 out of Miss B’s account to pay for rent when she receives full housing benefit;
• failed to act when the commissioned service responded to her in an unprofessional and insulting manner; and
• failed to deal with her complaint about the commissioned service.
2. Miss C says the Council’s failures meant Miss B suffered a significant financial loss which took time to resolve and caused her, Miss C, distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Miss C and the organisation 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

Section 42 of the Care Act 2014

8. (1)This section applies where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that an adult in its area (whether or not ordinarily resident there):
• (a)has needs for care and support (whether or not the authority is meeting any of those needs),
• (b)is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and
• (c)as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it.
9. (2)The local authority must make (or cause to be made) whatever enquiries it thinks necessary to enable it to decide whether any action should be taken in the adult's case (whether under this Part or otherwise) and, if so, what and by whom.
10. (3)“Abuse” includes financial abuse; and for that purpose “financial abuse” includes:
• (a)having money or other property stolen,
• (b)being defrauded,
• (c)being put under pressure in relation to money or other property, and
• (d)having money or other property misused.

What happened

11. Miss B is a vulnerable adult with learning disabilities. The Council put in place an appointee service, Money Carers Foundation (MCF) for Miss B.
12. When reviewing Miss B’s bank statements Miss C identified a payment of almost £2,000 in April 2024 out of Miss B’s savings account to pay for rent. Miss C raised a safeguarding concern with the Council on 6 August 2024. Miss C said Miss B received full housing benefit to cover her rent and money should not be taken out of her savings account for rent.
13. The Council responded on 7 August. The Council said it paid housing benefit into Miss B’s bank account and it was paid to the landlord every four weeks. The Council said it appeared MCF had done that. The Council said it would seek confirmation from MCF about whether any rent refunds were due.
14. Miss C reiterated two payments had gone to the landlord on 16 April amounting to almost £4,000. Miss C said the landlord had only refunded one payment of £2,040.28 and Miss B needed the remaining £1,931.95 reimbursing. Miss C raised concerns that without somebody keeping an independent eye on the account mistakes continued involving substantial amounts of money. Miss C asked for a meeting.
15. On 29 August the Council told Miss C it had spoken to MCF who had said no more refunds were due
16. Miss C again told the Council £2,000 had left Miss B’s savings account when she should not have had to pay rent as housing benefit covered it. Miss C also stressed the payment had gone from Miss B’s savings account and not her rent account.
17. MCF provided Miss C with an explanation for the funds paid out of the account. Miss C again pointed out as Miss B received housing benefit she should not have to pay anything towards her rent out of her savings account. In response an officer from MCF wrote to Miss B in a manner which the Council subsequently found unprofessional. Miss B complained to the Council about that correspondence. Miss C also raised concerns about no progress on the safeguarding investigation.
18. The Council responded to Miss C’s complaint on 21 October. The Council directed Miss C to MCF’s complaints procedure.
19. Miss C asked the Council for an update on 6 November. The Council told Miss C it needed to arrange a meeting with MCF.
20. Miss C met with Council officers on 19 November. The Council told Miss C it hoped to meet with MCF the following week.
21. Miss C contacted the Council on 3 December to ask for an update on what had happened at the meeting with MCF. The Council told Miss C it had to rearrange the meeting as MCF had not attended, although MCF says it did not receive an invite.
22. Miss C chased the Council again on 22 January 2025. The Council told Miss C it intended to meet with MCF the following week.
23. The Council contacted Miss C on 5 February to say it had met with MCF. The Council told her MCF would review the accounts.
24. On 11 March the Council told Miss C it would arrange a further meeting with MCF as the rent payment issue was not clear.
25. A new Council officer took over the case on 13 March. That officer identified that housing benefit fully covered Miss B's rent payments and therefore no funds should have gone from her personal savings account to pay for rent. The Council decided to arrange a multiagency meeting.
26. A meeting took place on 20 March, attended by MCF, Council officers and Miss C. At that meeting MCF acknowledged it had made an error in withdrawing the rent payment from Miss B’s savings account and said it would return it. The meeting also noted MCF had provided an unprofessional response to Miss C when she raised a complaint. Measures were agreed to address that. MCF also agreed to refund the amount wrongly withdrawn from the account and pay compensation to Miss B. The following measures were also agreed:
• MCF to ensure professional standards are upheld when responding to a complaint;
• MCF to ensure full compliance with financial safeguarding responsibilities including transparent financial oversight and accountability in managing funds;
• MCF to review its complaints policy.
27. The Council closed the safeguarding enquiry in April 2025 as MCF had returned the funds to Miss B’s account and paid her compensation. The Council agreed to carry out a learning review with service managers from adult social care and MCF in attendance.
28. The Council says the safeguarding team has engaged in reflective practice for continuous improvement to explore the barriers that contributed to the delays concluding the enquiry. The Council says the case was discussed at a team meeting and key learnings focused on the importance of:
• clear handover processes when cases are transferred between officers;
• managerial oversight during staff absence or change, ensuring continuity and accountability;
• early identification and escalation of unresolved safeguarding concerns;
• maintaining accurate and up-to-date case records, particularly when a safeguarding plan is dependent on financial or service related actions.

Analysis

29. Miss C says the Council delayed investigating the safeguarding concerns she raised about how MCF was managing Miss B’s money. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss C raised concerns with the Council about a large amount of money going out of Miss B’s savings account to pay for rent in August 2024. That amount had gone out of the account in April 2024. As Miss C pointed out, money should not have gone out of Miss B’s savings account to cover rent. Also, as Miss B received full housing benefit she should not have had to pay anything towards her rent.
30. I am concerned about the delay investigating this matter as a safeguarding concern. I am satisfied officers were in regular contact with Miss C and sought to obtain some information from MCF. It is also clear some of the delay was due to MCF not responding to requests for a meeting. However, there is no evidence the meeting took place until February 2025. There is also no evidence the safeguarding meeting took place until March 2025. That is a considerable delay and is fault. Had the Council managed the process properly it is likely it would have identified the issue with the payment and secured a refund to Miss B sooner.
31. I am satisfied though the issue with the money paid out of Miss B savings account has now been resolved. I am also satisfied MCF has paid Miss B a compensatory amount to reflect the amount of time the matter took to resolve. I am therefore satisfied the injustice to Miss B has been remedied. However, I consider Miss C has a separate injustice as she had to go to considerable time and trouble to get the Council to investigate. It is also clear if Miss C had not persisted Miss B would likely never have received the money back to her account. To recognise Miss C’s distress and the time and trouble she had to go to I recommended the Council apologise to her and pay her £100. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
32. The Council says it has taken action to address the learning from this complaint. I outline those actions in paragraphs 26 and 28. As I am satisfied the Council has addressed the issues which caused the delays in the safeguarding process I do not make any recommendation for procedural remedies for safeguarding.
33. I am also satisfied the Council acted to address the issues that arose in this case by arranging a learning review with officers from social care and MCF. As part of the remedy for this complaint the Council should provide the Ombudsman with details of the outcome from that learning review and any remedial actions identified. The Council has agreed.
34. The other issue Miss C raised relates to the way an officer from MCF communicated with her. Miss C says the officer acted in an unprofessional and insulting manner. I am satisfied the Council identified the officer in question had dealt with Miss C unprofessionally. I am satisfied that was addressed as part of the safeguarding process and measures were put in place to address that to ensure MCF responded to complaints professionally. I therefore make no further recommendation for remedy given I have already recommended Council apologise to Miss C, which the Council has agreed to do.
35. I recognise though Miss C is concerned when she raised concerns about the email the Council referred her back to MCF to complain. I understand that is the usual process for complaints about a commissioned service’s member of staff. However, Miss B had also asked the Council to escalate the safeguarding issues as she could not get clear information from MCF. As the Council had commissioned the service I would have expected it to deal with the safeguarding concerns raised rather than refer Miss C back to MCF. Failure to do that is fault.
36. As part of the remedy for the complaint I recommended the Council remind officers dealing with complaints of the need to consider whether the complaint should be referred to the commissioned service to respond to or whether the Council, as the commissioning body, should investigate and respond. Where the complainant is referred to the commissioned body the Council should make clear the person affected can come back to the Council if they are dissatisfied with the commissioned body’s response. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss C for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Miss C £100;
• provide the Ombudsman with details of the learning review the Council has undertaken and any measures it has put in place or intends to put in place to address the issues that arose in this case; and
• send a memo to officers dealing with complaints in social care that involve a commissioned body. That memo should remind officers:
1. to consider whether it is appropriate for the Council to investigate the matters raised rather than referring it back to the commissioned body; and
2. where the person is referred to the commissioned body the Council should tell the person affected they can return to the Council if the commissioned body does not respond or they are dissatisfied with the response.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman