Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries relating to Mrs X’s daughter, Ms Y. We already investigated parts of the complaint. Some parts are late and there is not a good reason for Mrs X’s delay in bringing these matters to us. Complaints about the Council’s data-handling are best considered by the Information Commissioner. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the remaining parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained:
1. The Council made significant errors and included dishonest information in a safeguarding enquiry;
2. The Council amended information before sending it to the Ombudsman and omitted important documents;
3. The Care Provider gave the Council false information and reports and was dishonest;
4. The Council allowed the non-CQC-registered Care Provider to provide Ms Y personal care;
5. The Care Provider neglected Ms Y;
6. The Council failed to address false, life-changing accusations against her and Ms Y;
7. The Council refused to disclose personal information it held about her and ignored her information requests;
8. The Council ignored new information Mrs X provided and delayed considering it;
9. The Council failed to update Ms Y’s care plan;
10. The Care Provider did not report an incident to the Council; and
11. The Council kept referring Mrs X to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council or care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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 injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Matters we already investigated

7. We previously considered a complaint from Mrs X and made our decision in early 2024. Mrs X had the opportunity to challenge that decision, ultimately via judicial review, if she disagreed with the outcome.
8. Several parts of Mrs X’s new complaint are matters we already considered, about which she says she has new evidence. We obtained the information from the Council we considered relevant, and we decided the Council carried out its safeguarding enquiry process in line with statutory guidance.
9. Mrs X brought new information to us following that decision. We explained the new information did not impact our decision but asked the Council to consider it.
10. We cannot use a new complaint as a means to circumnavigate the review process that was available to Mrs X. We will not reconsider the Council’s safeguarding enquiry of 2023 via this new complaint and parts a) b) and c) of the complaint are matters we already considered and decided. I have considered separately below how the Council responded to the new information Mrs X brought to it in 2024.

Late matters

11. The law says we will not consider complaints made more than 12 months after a person finding out about the matter, unless there are good reasons for the delay. Mrs X brought this complaint to us in January 2025.
12. Ms Y had already moved out of the accommodation in question when Mrs X brought her previous complaint to us in mid-2023. Complaints d) and e) are matters Mrs X could have brought to us much sooner as she was already aware of them more than 18 months before bringing this complaint to us.
13. Complaint f) relates to comments in the Council’s safeguarding enquiry, which Mrs X received in late 2022 and challenged at the time. She could also have raised this complaint with us.
14. Mrs X says the reason for her delay in complaining to us was that she was awaiting responses to information requests and made contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We do not require people to gather evidence themselves before complaining to us. Mrs X could have complained to us as she had sufficient cause for concern at the time of events. We could then have obtained the information relevant to our consideration.
15. There is not a good reason for delays in bringing these matters to us and we will not now investigate complaints d), e) and f).

Matters for the Information Commissioner’s Office

16. Complaint g) is about the Council’s response to requests for information. The ICO is the body best placed to consider how organisations handle people’s data. We will not consider this matter instead.
17. Parts of Mrs X’s complaint refer to requests for information to be rectified. The ICO is also best placed to consider requests made using the right to rectification under the General Data Protection Regulation. The Council’s view is the information Mrs X challenged related to differences of opinion rather than incorrect information. This would bring these matters under our scope rather than that of the ICO. However, these parts of the complaint ultimately relate to the Council’s safeguarding investigation of 2022 which we already considered and are captured by the above sections relating to complaints Mrs X already brought to us, or could have brought to us.

Parts of the complaint we could investigate

18. Mrs X’s complaints included delays in the Council considering the new information she brought to its attention in 2024, and in updating Ms Y’s care plan. If we investigated complaints h) and i), we would likely find fault by the Council.
19. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for these delays. It has now carried out a further safeguarding enquiry based on the new information she provided, and updated Ms Y’s care plan. We could not achieve a different outcome by investigating these matters now, as these are the remedies we would recommend if we investigated these complaints.
20. Mrs X indicates she may wish to complain about the content and outcome of the enquiry and care plan. It is open to her to make a new complaint, as I have only considered events up to January 2025.
21. The Council was not aware of the incident referred to at complaint point j) until Mrs X made it aware. The Council has included this incident in its safeguarding investigation of 2025 and will make any necessary recommendations to the Care Provider. There is not a meaningful outcome we could achieve by investigating the Care Provider’s actions now, given Ms Y no longer receives care from it.
22. Mrs X also complained the Council kept referring her to the Ombudsman. This is not fault, and we expect councils to refer to us when they have completed consideration of complaints via their own complaint processes. There is insufficient evidence of fault that would justify investigating complaint k).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman