Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to start an adults safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council stated an adult safeguarding enquiry when the threshold to do so had not been met. Mrs B says the Council was heavy-handed in its approach and this caused significant distress to her family. She says the Council will not answer her concerns or include her in the vulnerable adult’s care and support arrangements and this causes further distress and frustration. As an outcome Mrs B wants the Council to acknowledge its safeguarding investigation did not meet the threshold and it is invalid. She also wants the Council to apologise and provide training to its staff so they better understand the vulnerable adult’s specific diagnosis.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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)
7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA) applies to people who may lack mental capacity to make certain decisions. Section 42 of the MCA provides for a Code of Practice (the Code) which sets out steps organisations should take when considering whether someone lacks mental capacity.
8. Both the MCA and the Code start by presuming individuals have capacity unless there is proof to the contrary. The Code says all practicable steps should be taken to support individuals to make their own decisions before concluding someone lacks capacity. The Code says people who make unwise decisions should not automatically be treated as not being able to make decisions. Someone can have capacity and still make unwise decisions.
9. Mrs B complained to the Council in January 2025 about its decision to start a section 42 adult safeguarding enquiry. Mrs B also complained about mental capacity assessments the Council had completed with the vulnerable adult. This had resulted in Mrs B, and her family had less involvement with the vulnerable adult because of choices the person had made. Overall, Mrs B felt the Council had dismissed her concerns.
10. The Council responded to the complaint and said its team members were skilled in completing mental capacity assessments. It said two team members had completed capacity assessments which concluded the vulnerable adult had capacity to make specific decisions. It said the vulnerable adult had made decisions about how much they wanted to be involved with Mrs B and her family.
11. The Council explained it had acted on allegations of historical abuse which led to its decision to start the safeguarding enquiry. It recognised it was a difficult time for Mrs B and her family and said it had communicated with her throughout the process. It said it supported the vulnerable adult and respected who they wanted to share information with regarding their care and support arrangements. The Council confirmed it had invited Mrs B to the vulnerable adult’s next care review meeting.
12. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The threshold for safeguarding is low, and we cannot question the Council’s decision to start the safeguarding enquiry just because
    Mrs B disagrees with it. It is likely the case Mrs B experienced distress following the outcome of the mental capacity assessments completed. There is not enough evidence to show this was because of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman