Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not properly investigated a safeguarding referral. She also said its complaint response was delayed and did not address all the issues she had raised. Ms X said the poor service by the Council caused stress, which led to ill-health.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X uses a gardening service provided by a Council contractor. A person working for the contractor, Mr Y, offered to carry out additional services, which Ms X agreed to. Mr Y and a third party, Mr Z, carried out the work. However, Ms X was unhappy with the standard of the work done and says she was grossly over-charged for it. She complained to the contractor in August 2024, who said they had no knowledge of the work, which was not part of its contract with the Council. They said they would speak to Mr Y, who should not have been working for Council clients in his spare time and would ask him to rectify the work.
6. Ms X was unhappy with the response and reported the matter to the police. In December 2024, the police made a referral to the Council as a safeguarding matter because Mr Y’s conduct might amount to financial abuse. The Council visited Ms X to get more information about what had happened and assess whether she needed support. Council records indicated Ms X was concerned the work was incomplete and about the amount she had paid. It decided that this was a private matter and gave Ms X advice about taking court action against Mr Y and Mr Z. It also decided that the threshold for further safeguarding action was not met and wrote to her to confirm that in February 2025.
7. Ms X complained about the way she had been treated by the Council. She said it had not acted on the safeguarding referral and had not even contacted the contractor, despite her providing contact details for them. She also said a staff member was rude on the telephone, which reduced her to tears.
8. The Council said it would respond to her complaint by 4 April but did not do so until 15 April 2025. The Council did not uphold the complaint but agreed to a further visit by the social worker and a senior social worker to consider the matter further. I understand a visit was arranged but then declined by Ms X. The Council did not investigate at stage 2 of its complaints process because Ms X said its complaints process was not fit for purpose, and she would complain to us.

My assessment

9. Although Mr Y was working for a Council contractor when he approached Ms X, he did not do so with the agreement or knowledge of either the contractor or the Council and the additional works proposed were outside the scope of the contact between them. Therefore, it was not fault for the Council to decide this was a private matter and give advice about taking court action. In addition, if there was fraud involved, that would be a criminal matter and for the police to investigate.
10. In relation to the safeguarding referral, the Council contacted Ms X and a social worker carried out a visit to assess whether she was at risk or needed additional support. Following that visit, the Council decided the threshold for safeguarding enquiries was not met and communicated that to Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this to justify further investigation.
11. Although there was some miscommunication between Ms X and the Council, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation. In addition, it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
12. We do not investigate council complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying complaint, so we will not consider that part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman