Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. She says the Council confirmed a section 42 enquiry in
   February 2025 but later reclassified the safeguarding enquiry as “non-statutory”. Miss B says because of this she was denied the protections she would have received under the statutory process. Miss B says the Council did not review diagnostic evidence despite her disclosure of autism and dyslexia. Miss B says the Council’s decision caused her serious psychological impact and she felt dehumanised and shut out of the process which should have protected her. Miss B wants the Council to acknowledge it should have followed a section 42 enquiry in line with the Care Act 2014.

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
• 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, or

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B complained about the way the Council safeguarding process because it did not consider the concerns she raised in line with section 42 of the
   Care Act 2014.
6. Section 42 of the Care Act 42 states that adult safeguarding enquiries should be made where a person is 18 years or over, where a person has needs for care and support, where a person is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect, and because of their care and support needs, is unable to protect him or herself against abuse or neglect, or the risk of it.
7. Miss B said because the Council changed its decision to consider the concerns she raised as section 42 enquiry, she was denied the protections she would have had. The Council told Miss B her concerns did not meet the criteria for a section 42 enquiry because she did not have a need for care and support under the terms of the Care Act 2014. This was why it had changed its initial decision. It said it could completed a Care Act 2014 assessment when responding to Miss B’s complaint.
8. The Council’s procedures states “where the circumstances are not such as to trigger the Section 42 safeguarding duty, the [Council] may choose to carry out proportionate safeguarding enquiries, in order to promote the adult’s
   well-being and to support preventative action.” The Council told Mrs B the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry whether considered a section 42 enquiry or not was the same.
9. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council considered Miss B’s concerns in line with its safeguarding procedures although it decided a section 42 safeguarding duty was not triggered. Its enquiry established what action needed to be taken to achieve the outcomes. The Council accepted it should have communicated better with Miss B to explain its processes it said it would improve. It is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman