Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding adults enquiry. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. The Council has accepted delay, apologised for the impact, and acted to improve future service.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has failed to properly explain what the two areas of learning from a safeguarding investigation are about her relative, Ms C’s, adult social care. Ms B says the Council failed to refer the matter to the police. Ms B feels nobody is taking accountability for Ms C’s neglect. Ms B is traumatised and cannot properly grieve Ms C’s death.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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 was responsible to complete a safeguarding enquiry into Ms C’s adult social care. In doing so the Council can ask other bodies to make enquiries, including the care provider. The Council accepts in this case it was wrong to ask the care provider to investigate, and that caused delay. The reason it was wrong in this case was because the care provider had only just come out of a Large-Scale Safeguarding Enquiry (LSSE) and was not competent.
7. The two learning points Ms B refers to are explained in the Council’s letter to her. The Council will have a discussion with its contracts and quality teams to decide if a provider has improved and is competent to undertake a safeguarding enquiry if there has recently been an LSSE. Where this is agreed the Council will directly assign the safeguarding enquiry to the named senior LSSE lead professional. The Council said it has already carried out these changes.
8. The Council explains the police were involved with discussions about this case and the police decided not to complete a criminal investigation. The Council explained this to Ms B in its complaint response.
9. The Council apologised to Ms B for the impact of the failures in its safeguarding investigation, and how the delay added to her distress.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because I am satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. The Council has accepted fault in its safeguarding process in this case and acted to change procedures in future. The Council has apologised to Ms B for the impact it caused.
11. The outcomes Ms B wishes to achieve of refund of fees paid for poor care, and a payment in recognition of distress, are more likely to be achieved on a separate complaint against the care provider. These are not direct impacts of the Council’s safeguarding delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman