Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adult safeguarding enquiry. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation relating to his mother (Mrs Y), and the outcome of the investigation. He said the Council wrongly said it had tried to contact Mrs Y’s family, failed to advise them of the outcome and refused to share an unredacted copy of its enquiry report. He wanted the Council to share the unredacted enquiry report and associated evidence, and to make service improvements.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint relates to a safeguarding enquiry carried out between late 2023 to early 2024. Mrs Y died in early 2024 and the Council closed its enquiry.
7. The purpose of a safeguarding enquiry is to decide whether any action is required to safeguard the adult at risk. The Council decided it could not determine the cause of a sore in Mrs Y’s mouth. Given Mrs Y had died, no action was required to safeguard her. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to close the enquiry.
8. The Council recorded that it had contacted Mr X, who had asked that it send a letter rather than discuss the matter over the telephone. Mr X disputes this is what happened.
9. Regardless of which account is correct, the outcome would not have been any different but for any fault in the Council’s attempts to contact Mrs Y’s family. It is not proportionate to investigate this further.
10. The Council has apologised for its delay in telling Mrs Y’s family it had closed its safeguarding enquiry in March 2024. Further investigation would not lead to a different or more meaningful outcome as the Council has already provided a remedy in line with what we would likely recommend.
11. The Council considered Mr X’s request for a copy of the enquiry report as a Freedom of Information request. It agreed to share the report, however Mr X is dissatisfied with redactions the Council applied.
12. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body best placed to consider complaints about how organisations deal with requests for information. It is open to Mr X to refer his concerns about this to the ICO. There is not a good reason for us to consider this matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman