Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding referrals, false information on Mr X’s file and an officer’s telephone contact with Mr X. Further investigation by us would not change the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaints included the Council:
• was unprofessional and unhelpful during a voicemail and telephone call;
• recorded false information in Mr X’s record;
• failed to act on a safeguarding referral from an NHS service and failed to respond to Mr X when he asked it whether it had received the referral;
• failed to act on a safeguarding referral Mr X himself submitted, and wrongly decided the threshold for an enquiry was not met; and
• treated a request for information as a request to review his complaint.
2. Mr X said these matters caused him significant distress and uncertainty. He said they led to him being unreasonably denied a care assessment for three months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

The telephone call and voicemail

8. The Council considered Mr X’s complaints about an officer’s approach during a voicemail and telephone conversation in January 2025, following a safeguarding referral Mr X submitted. The Council apologised to Mr X and explained it would address the matter through learning with the officer and their team.
9. The Council said in its complaint response that its officer had appropriately signposted Mr X during the telephone call and was correct to say the matters he had raised were for the housing team and NHS services.
10. The call occurred before the outcome of our separate investigation was known. In that decision statement, we said the Council had failed to carry out a care needs assessment despite Mr X telling it he had needs for care and support. If we investigated this complaint it is likely we would also find fault in the officer signposting to other teams rather than agreeing to assess Mr X’s needs.
11. However, further investigation now will not result in a different outcome. The Council has since assessed Mr X’s needs. It has already provided a remedy in relation to the impact on Mr X of the voicemail message. We could not come to sound conclusions about attitude or tone of voice, as these matters are subjective. It is unlikely further investigation, including into how the Council considered Mr X’s expressed safeguarding concerns, would identify further fault by the Council, causing Mr X a significant injustice that would warrant further remedy.

Incorrect information on Mr X’s file

12. Mr X complained the social worker also entered false information into his adult social care record in January 2025. This relates to a record of a telephone conversation between the social worker and the Council’s housing department, where the social worker recorded Mr X had not sought a review of a housing decision. Mr X had requested a review of the relevant housing decision in December 2024.
13. We could not say whether the housing officer communicated incorrect information to the social worker, or the social worker made an incorrect record. If we investigated this part of the complaint, we may find fault with the Council’s adult social care service.
14. However, it is not proportionate to investigate this further. This is because the alleged injustice following from this related to Mr X’s assertion he should have received a Care Act assessment. As explained above, we have since considered this via a separate investigation, and any further investigation of this part of his complaint would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.
15. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that considers requests for rectification under the General Data Protection Regulation. Should Mr X wish to pursue rectification of this statement in his file, the ICO is the body best placed to consider the matter.

The safeguarding referral from an NHS organisation

16. The Council received a safeguarding referral from an NHS organisation in February 2025. This related to Mr X not having accepted support from NHS services despite risk of self-harming. The Council made a referral to the appropriate NHS service. It recorded that Mr X had mental capacity and sought support from the appropriate services when needed. It recorded its decision to take no further action.
17. Where an organisation has properly considered a decision, we cannot say that decision was fault. The Council properly considered and recorded its decision not to progress to further safeguarding enquiries in this instance, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it came to that decision.
18. Mr X wrote to the Council after it had received the referral, asking what steps it would take as a result. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s email but did not provide any further details about its decision or reasoning. If we investigated the matter, we may find fault in this respect. However, communicating an outcome to Mr X would not have changed the decision not to take further action. It is not proportionate to further investigate this as doing so would not result in a different or more meaningful outcome.

The safeguarding referral Mr X submitted

19. Mr X submitted a safeguarding referral to the Council in April 2025. He based this on his view that he was experiencing abuse or neglect due to the Council’s housing department having not responded to an email. Mr X said his housing need was urgent and therefore a safeguarding matter.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s referral explaining its reasons for deciding this did not meet the threshold for carrying out an enquiry under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014. Mr X disagreed, and says there was fault by the Council in how it considered this decision.
21. It is not proportionate for us to consider this matter further. Our previous investigation found the Council had properly explained to Mr X, in relation to earlier referrals, that his housing situation did not warrant enquiries under Section 42 of the Care Act.
22. While I would expect to see separate consideration of this further referral on file, I have not sought further evidence of this because any fault we may find in how the Council considered this referral would not have changed the outcome. There was not a duty on the Council to carry out safeguarding enquiries relating to Mr X’s housing circumstances. The appropriate route for Mr X to challenge the Council’s housing department is through use of the complaints process.

Complaint-handling

23. It is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints about complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council treating a request for information as a complaint escalation.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by us would not result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman