Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding referrals about his welfare. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him support after it received safeguarding referrals about his welfare. He said the Council allocated his case to the wrong adult social care team. He said the lack of support had impacted on his mental health. He wants the Council to compensate him for the harm and distress he has experienced.

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.

(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. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed it had received multiple safeguarding referrals for Mr X throughout 2024. It said most of these did not meet the threshold to move to a safeguarding enquiry. It said one did meet the threshold; it allocated that referral to a Social Worker to make enquiries. The Council said following contact, Mr X asked the Social Worker to close the referral. The Council did not uphold his complaint.
6. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to 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.
7. The complaint response provided by the Council indicates that most of the referrals it received were about Mr X's mental health and issues with his medication. They were not about him being at risk from abuse or neglect. Where there were concerns in relation to Mr X’s mental health, the Council passed these onto the specialist Mental Health Service. It also completed a Mental Health Assessment where necessary to determine if Mr X needed to be detained in hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it dealt with those referrals to justify our involvement.
8. The Council confirmed it opened safeguarding enquiries following an incident reported by Mr X. He then asked the Council to close the enquiry; that was Mr X’s choice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to close that enquiry.
9. Mr X asked the Council to complete a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) into the support her had received from Health, Housing, the Police and the Council. The Council’s Safeguarding Adults Board decided it would not complete a review. It said the basis of Mr X’s review request was best dealt with as a complaint to the relevant organisations. It also said it did not meet the criteria for a SAR, as most of the referrals about Mr X were not assessed as adult safeguarding matters. The Council has applied statutory guidance in making that decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman