Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled two safeguarding enquiries. There is either not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation, or we could not achieve anything meaningful.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about two safeguarding enquiries the Council carried out. Specifically she complains of poor communications, inaccurate records, dismissive and argumentative behaviour from a Council officer and a lack of accountability.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 X raised safeguarding alerts about the care her father, Mr Z, received from two care companies. Referral 1 related to poor quality of care. Referral 2 concerned the length of time it took a carer to call an ambulance when they found Mr Z had fallen.
6. The Council decided the threshold to carry out enquiries had been met. For Referral 1, it substantiated (upheld) all of Miss X’s concerns. With Referral 2, it did not substantiate Miss X’s concerns because it did not have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
7. For both enquiries, the Council held meetings, spoke to the family and to the people involved in Mr Z’s care, came to evidence based findings on each of Miss X’s concerns, most of which were substantiated, and made recommendations to address them. The Council held the relevant parties to account during this process. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
8. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, if the records are inaccurate because this involves a difference of opinion between Miss X and the Council. However, from my reading of them, they appear to be an unbiased account of what people say happened. I also cannot make any safe findings over the behaviour of the officer because I was not there to witness it.
9. Therefore, we will not investigate these complaints because we could achieve nothing meaningful.
10. Miss X is unhappy about the communications from the Council. In isolation, it is unlikely there would be enough injustice from this to warrant an investigation. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is either not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation, or we could not achieve anything meaningful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman