Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint about her relative being subjected to coercive behaviour. This is because, while the Council did not tell Miss X it would be visiting her relative, any fault has not caused injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that her relative, who needs care and support, is being subjected to coercive control and domestic abuse by third parties. Miss X says the Council’s failed to keep to its agreement to notify her before interviewing Miss X’s relative.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 which includes the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The council must make enquiries whether it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs of care and support which means the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
6. The Council admits it failed to inform Miss X that it would be interviewing her relative under safeguarding procedures contrary to Miss X’s wishes. The Council says it followed safeguarding best practice procedures, in any case, and it is usual to interview the vulnerable person on their own and not with the complainant. It advises that Miss X’s relative did not agree to Miss X’s version of events and it found no evidence to support the claim made so the case was closed.
7. When Miss X complained, the complaints investigator also visited Miss X’s relative to check the original decision. Again, Miss X’s relative reiterated they did not agree with Miss X making the complaint or that they were being coerced or abused.
8. We will not investigate. While it is arguable if the Council acted with fault, as there is no obligation on it to inform a complainant about an interview date under safeguarding procedures, there is no injustice to warrant an investigation. Further, the interview carried out during the complaints process accords with complaint investigation best practice so there is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any fault has not caused injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman