Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider her safeguarding concerns about Mrs Y. She also complained it wrongly blocked their communication. Ms X said this caused her unnecessary stress and put Mrs Y at risk. We find no fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:

1. did not properly consider her safeguarding reports about Mrs Y;
2. wrongly blocked all communication when it restricted their contact;
3. wrongly shared their information; and
4. handled her complaints poorly.

2. Ms X says this caused her unnecessary stress and put Mrs Y at risk of harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Ms X complains the Council wrongly shared her information. As I explained above, we normally expect complainants to bring complaints about data protection to the Information Commissioner. I consider it was reasonable for Ms X to bring her complaint to the Information Commissioner. For this reason, I have not investigated part c of her complaint.
10. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025. Ms X raised matters which have occurred since she brought her complaint to us. As I explained above, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. These matters directly relate to Ms X’s original complaint, and I am satisfied the Council has knowledge of these matters. I have exercised discretion and included these later matters in my investigation.
11. I have investigated parts a, b and d of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Safeguarding (part a of the complaint)

14. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean 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)

Restricted communication (part b of the complaint)

15. The Council’s policy on dealing with unreasonably persistent complainants and unreasonable complainant behaviour summarises unreasonable complainants are those complainants who, because of the frequency or nature of their contact with the Council, hinder its consideration of their or other people’s complaints or enquiries.
16. It says any restriction that is imposed on the complainant’s contact will be necessary and proportionate and the complainant will be advised of the period the restriction will be in place for.
17. It says restrictions can include requiring contact to take place with one named member of staff only and technical diverts of emails to that one designated point of contact.

Complaint handling (part d of the complaint)

18. The Council’s adult social care complaints policy states who can make a complaint. It says a complaint can be made by:
• Any person who receives or has received services from Adult Social Care
• A complaint can only be made by/on behalf of someone to whom the Local Authority may have the duty or power to provide a service.
19. It says a representative may complain on behalf of another person if the person:
• Has died
• Is a child
• Is unable to make the complaint themselves due to physical incapacity or lack of capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
• Has requested that the representative act on their behalf
20. It says any decision that a complainant is not a qualifying complainant will be made by the Complaints Manager, in consultation with the appropriate Service Manager, and the complainant informed in writing.

What happened

21. Mrs Y has care needs and receives care support which is not arranged or commissioned by the Council. She has capacity to make her own decisions.
22. Prior to April 2025, Mrs Y was in hospital. Following an incident, the Council restricted Ms X’s contact with the Council and told her she could not attend its offices. The Council assigned one named member of staff to be the sole contact for all Ms X’s future contact, in this statement they are referred to as ‘Officer A’. The Council received multiple complaints from Mrs Y.
23. In April 2025, Mrs Y was due to be discharged from hospital. The Council visited Mrs Y with an independent advocate. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about its visit to Mrs Y in hospital. Her formal complaint included safeguarding concerns.
24. The Council told Ms X it would not respond to her complaint. It said it had considered its complaints policy and decided Ms X was not a qualifying complainant. It said Mrs Y was able to make her own complaint and could do so if she wished.
25. In May, Ms X raised another complaint with the Council about its hospital visit and complained that Officer A declined to take the action she sought.
26. In June, the Council reminded Ms X to comply with her contact restrictions and told her to contact Officer A only. It told Ms X it would not consider her safeguarding concerns.
27. In June, the Council formally responded to Ms X’s complaints. It told her it had significant doubts about whether Mrs Y was writing the complaints which were in her name. It told Ms X the purpose of its hospital visit was to check if Mrs Y was making the multiple complaints. It had been unable to ascertain this during the visit. It said for this reason, it would not respond to any future complaints.
28. In July, Ms X contacted the Council to escalate her concerns. The Council did not respond.
29. A week later, Ms X emailed Officer A. She received a notification that her email was not delivered.
30. Ms X contacted another agency and reported Officer A was not accepting her email contact. The agency contacted the Council. The Council fixed the issue and restored her ability to email Officer A.
31. Shortly afterwards, the Council contacted Mrs Y’s independent advocate and requested an online meeting with Mrs Y. The meeting did not go ahead.
32. Ms X and Mrs Y continued to make complaints to the Council.
33. In September, the Council placed restrictions on Mrs Y’s contact. It assigned Officer A to be the sole contact for all Mrs Y’s future contact, including any contact from people acting on her behalf.
34. In late 2025, Mrs Y made a further complaint. The Council contacted Mrs Y’s GP to confirm whether it had authored information she had provided. The GP did not provide the Council with any information.
35. In early 2026, the Council contacted Mrs Y and told her she had a new assigned sole contact for of her future contact, ‘Officer B’.
36. Ms X made further complaints and the Council continued to restrict her contact.

Analysis

Safeguarding (part a of the complaint)

37. The Council decided not to take further action in response to Ms X’s reports of safeguarding concerns. It would have been helpful for the Council to have explained its reasoning to Ms X for not taking further action. However, having seen the evidence I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant information and its legal safeguarding duty in its decision making. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision making and therefore I cannot criticise the outcome.

Limited communication (part b of the complaint)

38. I am satisfied the Council made its decision to restrict both Ms X and Mrs Y’s contact in line with its policy. I find no fault.
39. I am satisfied once the Council was made aware Ms X’s email was not delivered to Officer A, it acted promptly to resolve the issue. I do not find this significant enough to make a finding of fault.
40. It was reasonable for the Council to fact check information provided by Mrs Y. Mrs Y says the Council should not have contacted her GP. I find no fault.
41. I am satisfied the Council made suitable arrangements to review the ongoing restrictions it placed on Ms X and Mrs Y’s contact with the Council. I find no fault.

Complaint handling (part d of the complaint)

42. The Council’s complaint process says any decision about whether the complainant is a qualifying complainant should be made by the Complaints Manager and the appropriate Service Manager. In this case, Officer A made the decision Ms X was not a qualifying complainant. It was reasonable for the Council to depart slightly from its policy in this case because Ms X’s contact restrictions meant her complaint went directly to Officer A instead of the standard process via the complaints team, and Officer A’s role met the relevant seniority requirement. The Council also communicated its decision to Ms X in writing in line with its policy. I find no fault with the Council’s decision-making in its decision Ms X was not a qualifying complainant and so I cannot criticise the outcome.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman