Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the concerns to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns she raised about her late mother’s (Mrs Y’s), Care Provider. She said the Care Provider allowed Mrs Y’s medication to run out, did not wear appropriate protective equipment and did not maintain good standard of hygiene. She also said the Care Provider acted inappropriately towards her father, Mr Y. Mrs X said she raised her concerns at the time with the NHS, which was responsible for funding Mrs Y’s care. However, she said it did not consider her concerns fully.
2. Mrs X said the actions of the Care Provider, NHS and the Council has caused her distress. She does not think the Care Provider should be allowed to provide care for vulnerable adults.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs Y had care and support needs. These needs were met through CHC funding. Where an individual is eligible for CHC funding the Integrated Care Board (ICB) is responsible for care planning, commissioning services and case management.
10. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about quality-of-care Mrs Y received from the Care Provider or how the NHS responded to her concerns. These matters are not the responsibility of the Council, but the ICB. These complaints are dealt with by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.
11. The Council was responsible for overseeing safeguarding enquiries into Mrs Y’s care. It received a safeguarding referral for Mrs Y in 2024. This was not about the actions of the Care Provider, but other issues impacting upon her care. Following that referral, the Council met with Mrs Y and those involved in her care. It also contacted the ICB. The Council was satisfied with steps the ICB had taken to reduce risks posed to Mrs Y and closed the referral.
12. The Council received a further safeguarding referral at the start of 2025. It received this after Mrs Y’s death. This referral was around the care Mrs Y has received from the Care Provider and its interactions with Mr Y. As the ICB commissioned Mrs Y’s care, the Council asked the ICB to investigate the concerns. It made that decision in line with the Care Act 2014; there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
13. The Council reviewed the ICBs investigation. The Council’s view was that the issues raised related to disagreements between the Care Provider and the family. It did not consider there had been a significant impact on Mrs Y, and that the matters did not meet the threshold for safeguarding. The Council considered the concerns about the Care Provider’s interactions with Mr Y, but said he did not have eligible care needs. Therefore, did not meet the criteria for safeguarding.
14. Although Mrs X is unhappy with this decision we will not investigate. In both safeguarding enquiries, the Council had followed the correct process for considering the concerns. It has sought information from relevant people, including Mrs X, the ICB and the Care Provider. Where it did not consider the threshold for safeguarding had been met, it set out its reasons why. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to justify our involvement. Any concerns Mrs X has about the care provided are matters for the ICB.
15. Mrs X also complained the Council would not accept a complaint about the matter. It is not a good use of our resources to look at complaint handling; the Council has now issued a response to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman