Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into a safeguarding incident. This is because the injustice is not sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X works for a Care Provider. The Council completed an investigation into a safeguarding incident in which a service user of the Care Provider’s was injured.
2. Mr X complained the Council’s investigation was not impartial and did not consider all available evidence. Mr X also said the Care Provider was not given an opportunity to respond to the Council’s findings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X works for a Care Provider that was providing care services to the service user. Mr X has complained as an employee of the Care Provider and is not claiming any personal injustice.
8. The service user suffered an injury whilst the Care Provider staff were with her.
9. The Council investigated the incident and found the Care Provider staff did not follow the care plan at the time of the injury.
10. Mr X has alleged the Council’s investigation was not impartial and did not consider all available evidence, including not reviewing case records and not completing other enquiries.
11. Mr X also alleged the Council did not give the Care Provider an opportunity to respond to the findings, and the Care Provider only found out about the findings several months later.
12. The Council’s complaint response said the investigation identified learning for both the Council and the Care Provider.
13. We recognise that the Care Provider may be concerned the allegedly flawed safeguarding findings could be used in any action the service user might take against it. However, if that were to happen, the Care Provider could put forward its view that the safeguarding investigation was flawed and could present the complaint response and other evidence it has.
14. The Council said the safeguarding investigation’s findings are confidential, so it is unlikely it will damage the Care Provider’s reputation to the wider public.
15. Therefore, the injustice to Mr X and the Care Provider is not sufficient to justify us investigating whether the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into a safeguarding incident because the injustice is not sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman