Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation and the actions of a day centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault that would justify us investigating the complaint further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s safeguarding investigation relating to his wife, Mrs X. His complaint included:
• failure to properly investigate the matter and keeping the investigation open for too long;
• insisting on visiting Mrs X, including seeing her alone against Mr X’s wishes;
• being rude, intimidating and bullying; and
• forcing Mr X to send Mrs X to daycare three days a week when he felt two was sufficient.
2. Mr X also complained about the day services Mrs X attended. His complaints included:
• using an accusatory tone and attitude;
• providing high-sugar foods to Mrs X; and
• using coercion to make Mrs X continue attending.
3. Mr X said the Council also failed to investigate his complaints properly and failed to provide him information he requested.
4. Mr X said the matter caused him and Mrs X significant distress, affecting their relationship and human rights. He said he was concerned about the risk that a high-sugar diet could worsen Mrs X’s dementia. He wanted compensation and for staff training to be provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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))
6. 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)
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Section 42 of the Care Act requires that each local authority must make enquiries, or cause others to do so, if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. An enquiry should establish whether any action needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect and if so, by who. Its duty continues until it decides what action is necessary to protect the adult and by whom and ensures itself that this action has been taken.
11. The scope of the Council’s enquiry, who leads it and its nature, and how long it takes, will depend on the particular circumstances. It will usually start with asking the adult their view.
12. The Council received safeguarding concerns relating to Mrs X. It opened a Section 42 enquiry and consulted with other bodies including Mrs X’s day centre and the Community Mental Health Team. It sought to visit Mrs X alone, which it was entitled to do. It was able to speak with Mrs X, with an independent advocate present, at the day centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated the matter, and it was for the Council to decide what information it required and at what point it was satisfied.
13. There is insufficient evidence the Social Worker did not have enough knowledge of dementia. There is also insufficient evidence their actions were rude, intimidating or bullying, and any view of this would be subjective in any event.
14. Mr X says he was forced to send Mrs X to the day centre for three days a week rather than two. The Council said this was an agreement between Mr X and the day centre. The Council confirmed to Mr X that the service agreement in place between it and the day centre was that Mrs X would attend two days a week. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the matter further.
15. It is open to Mr X to refer his complaint about access to information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the organisation responsible for considering complaints about how organisations handle people’s data.
16. Much of the complaint Mr X raised relating to the actions of the day centre are about events that occurred more than 12 months before he complained to us. The law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing late matters to us, and we will not investigate these events.
17. There is, in any event, insufficient evidence of fault in the actions of the day centre. Mr X’s complaint is largely about verbal conversations, and his recollections differ to those of the day centre staff. We could not say now what was discussed, nor could we comment on the tone of voice used or perceptions of staff members’ attitudes.
18. The day centre has explained why it recommended Mrs X did not attend a party and why it attended Mr and Mrs X’s house on occasions. Where decisions are made without fault it is not for us to question those decisions, even though Mr X may disagree with them. There is no substantive evidence to show Mr X was forced or coerced into sending Mrs X to the day centre and we could not find the Council or the day centre at fault.
19. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will not therefore consider Mr X’s claims the Council did not properly investigate his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman