Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to decide not to start a safeguarding enquiry. So, we cannot question or criticise it even though the complainant disagrees. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s complaint investigation or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council did not fully investigate the safeguarding concerns she raised about her relative, Ms C. Ms B says X was isolating Ms C and financially abusing her. Nobody told Ms B when Ms C died, which was devastating. Ms B is concerned that X pressured Ms C into changing her will. Ms B wants the Council to provide information to help her with contesting the will.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council is the local safeguarding authority. Adult safeguarding is about protecting adults at risk of abuse or neglect by acting to prevent it and stop it if it's happening. Individuals and organisations work together to ensure adults live in safety.
7. Ms B raised her concerns with the Council, but it decided the threshold for safeguarding was not met. This was because there was no evidence Ms C was experiencing or at risk of neglect or abuse. Ms C was living safely in a hospice. Therefore, X could not control who could visit or speak with Ms C. The police had considered financial concerns and did not find any evidence of financial abuse. Professionals involved with Ms C had no concerns but would keep watch and raise a further safeguarding concern if they did in the future.
8. Although Ms B disagrees with this decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and so the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise its decision. The Council screened the safeguarding concern within its target timescale and spoke with relevant people involved to reach its decision.
9. The Council was not responsible for meeting Ms C’s care and support needs, these were being met by the NHS. So, the Council was not involved and was not responsible to tell Ms B when Ms C died.
10. The Council also has no responsibility for Ms C changing her will. The Council has correctly directed Ms B to seek legal advice to challenge the will in court. The solicitor who made the changes would have needed to be satisfied Ms C had capacity to decide the changes.
11. If Ms B is concerned about the Council’s response to information requests, the Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed to consider those concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to progress a safeguarding enquiry. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman