Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation into the safeguarding and charging services it provided. He says the Council failed to act on the charging issue before it had resolved the safeguarding matter. Also, the Council agreed to cancel the charges but then delayed in doing so. We found the Council at fault. It has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused and complete a new written outcome letter into the safeguarding investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the safeguarding and charging investigations completed by the Council for his mother - Ms Y. He says the Council failed to act on the charging issue before it had resolved the safeguarding matter. He says the Council had agreed to cancel the charges but delayed in doing so.
2. Mr X reports the whole situation was stressful and that he had to contact the Council often for it to respond.

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 caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
6. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. Also, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Charging

7. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
8. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment.
9. Schedule 3 to the Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support (Discharge of Hospital Patients) Regulations 2014 set out arrangements for the discharge of hospital patients with care and support needs.
10. On receiving an assessment notice, the council must assess the person’s care and support needs and (where applicable) those of a carer to determine whether it considers the patient and carer have needs. The council must then decide whether any of these identified needs meet the eligibility criteria. If so, it should confirm how it proposes to meet any of those needs. The council must inform the NHS of the outcome of its assessment and decisions.
11. To avoid any risk of having to pay back money, the council must start a needs assessment and put in place any care arrangements for meeting eligible needs before the ‘relevant day’. The relevant day is either the date when the NHS proposes to discharge the patient or the minimum period (two days after the council has received the assessment notice), whichever is the later.

Safeguarding

12. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
13. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. The council should include in its complaint response:

• how it considered the complaint;
• the conclusions reached about the complaint, including any required remedy; and
• whether it is satisfied all necessary action has been or will be taken by the organisations involved; and
• details of the complainant’s right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  (Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

14. The Council has provided a document entitled ‘London Multi-Agency Adult safeguarding policy and procedures. It says under section 2.9.16: The timescale from the decision to conduct a SAR (Safeguarding Adults Review) to completion is six months. In the event that the SAR is likely to take longer for example, the advocate should be advised in writing the reasons for the delay and kept updated on progress.
15. Under section 4.3.6 it also states that: all adult safeguarding concerns referred to the Local Authority should be assessed to decide if the criteria for adult safeguarding are met. Keeping the person who raised the concern informed is an essential requirement under these policies and procedures.
16. The Council Adult safeguarding policy and procedure states under section 9.3 that: the SAM (Safeguarding Adults Manager) is responsible for ensuring that:

• Agreement is obtained from the adult to close (the case)

• Referrals on have been completed

• Advice provided

• All organisations involved in the enquiry are updated

• The referrer has been given feedback

• The relevant action has been taken with the SOR/ PACH

• The relevant action has been taken to ensure other adults have been safeguarded if necessary

• Outcomes understood and commented on by the adult or their representative

• Consideration of a SAR has been made

• Any lessons to be learnt have been taken forward

17. Giving referrer feedback: 9.6: Similarly, it is a significant part of the section 42 process to report back to the person or organisation what became of their referral. Naturally, the level of detail will be in accordance with rules of data protection and confidentiality.

What happened

18. Ms Y was admitted to hospital in December 2023 and discharged in January 2024.
19. In February 2024 whilst being moved, Ms Y was injured. Mr X made a formal complaint at the same time.
20. In March 2024 the Council completed the care risk assessment. Mr X says that he was told that he would not be charged.
21. Mr X contacted the Council for an update on the safeguarding investigation in June, August and September 2024. In September 2024 the Council confirmed that due to staff absence, the safeguarding investigation was delayed for two weeks. Mr X again contacted the Council for an update in October 2024 before the Council issued its safeguarding response in November 2024.
22. In November 2024 Mr X complained about the charging from the Council after being told Ms Y was being charged. Although the Council responded to this at the time, Mr X had to contact the Council for an update in January 2025.
23. In February 2025, the Council agreed to cancel the charges. However, Mr X states that he had to contact the Council on multiple occasions before it cancelled the charges in June 2025.

Safeguarding

24. Under the safeguarding policy it states that keeping those who raised the concerns informed, is an essential part of the policy.
25. I consider the Council failed to keep Mr X updated throughout its investigation. Mr X had to contact the Council for updates and there were occasions when the Council failed to update Mr X such as in September 2024.
26. The policy states the whole process should take no longer than six months to complete. However, Mr X raised concerns in February 2024 and was not told the result of the investigation until November 2024. I consider this to be fault by the Council which would have caused Mr X further distress in believing the Council were not taking his concerns seriously.
27. The information provided by the Council shows that it did investigate each of the issues raised by Mr X. However reviewing the documents, I consider there has been a lack of oversight and explanation provided to Mr X about the result and actions of the investigation.
28. For example, Mr X has stated that he believes the care company records were falsified and the Council failed to investigate this. The investigation shows that it did, and found the records could not be amended, without the approval of a supervisor and the records do not show this. This however was not communicated to Mr X in the Council’s written response to the investigation.
29. The result therefore is that Mr X understandably believes that his concerns were not acted upon. The safeguarding investigation shows that it found the care agency should complete further training with its staff with extra training for those staff directly involved with Ms Y. However, I cannot see any evidence that this was checked by the Council to show the care company complied with the findings. Also, that the Council told Mr X of this in its written response.
30. Given the requirements under the Council’s policy to provide feedback and explanations into the actions taken, I consider the failure to do so to be fault by the Council. I find the Council should provide a new written outcome to the safeguarding investigation to Mr X, setting out its findings, actions and confirming whether these actions have been completed. If the Council later finds that actions have not been completed, I expect the Council to follow this up.
31. The Council should also write to its staff who complete safeguarding investigations to confirm the importance of providing sufficient feedback to those who raised the concerns in the first instance.
32. I have also considered the added distress the failure and delay from the safeguarding investigation have caused Mr X in the award I have made. This is in terms of having to contact the Council back and being unaware of the actions the Council has taken in consideration of this.

Charging

33. Although there is no specific timeframe that a Council must complete a financial assessment within, it should be completed promptly after a Council is aware of the services it was providing.
34. Ms Y was discharged from hospital in January 2024 and under intermediate care and reablement policies, care must be provided free of charge for up to six weeks. This should have allowed the Council time to complete its assessment into the care needed for Ms Y. However, the Council did not complete a care assessment until March 2024, almost 12 weeks after Ms Y had been discharged from hospital.
35. There is no clear reason for the delay in completing the assessment from the Council, and I consider the delay in doing so to be fault. Mr X has confirmed the Council has provided him with misinformation regarding whether it was going to charge him or not. He also states the Council delayed in starting the investigation into charging until it finished the investigation into safeguarding.
36. I consider the time it took the Council to decide on charging, especially after Mr X raised a complaint in September 2024, to be fault by the Council. While I understand Mr X’s concerns that the charging and safeguarding investigations were linked, the failure to complete both investigations is down to maladministration from the Council.
37. For example, the Council failed to cancel the charges in February 2025 even after the safeguarding investigation was complete. I consider this to be further fault from the Council, that it did not end up cancelling the charges until June 2025.
38. The fault caused injustice to Mr X both by having to contact the Council back unnecessarily and distress in receiving incorrect payment demands from the Council. I have considered this in my overall award below.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X for the distress caused in its handling of both the charging and safeguarding investigations.
2. Provide a new written outcome to the safeguarding investigation, setting out its findings, and action taken and whether this action was completed.
3. Pay Mr X £500 for the avoidable distress this issue has caused.
4. Provide guidance to staff completing safeguarding investigations explaining the importance of providing appropriate explanations and actions taken to those who have raised concerns in the first instance.
40. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payment to Mr X, provide additional explanation and provide guidance to its staff about this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman