Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided the adult was not at risk. The adult has since died and no longer needs safeguarding, so there would be no worthwhile outcome to achieve from an investigation. The complainant’s disappointment at how the Council handled the matter would not be a significant enough injustice to justify our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr D says the Council failed to properly assess and address his safeguarding concerns about his relative, Mr E. Mr D was concerned that other relatives were manipulating Mr E and financially abusing him. Mr D wanted the Council to fully investigate the concerns. Mr D also says the Council blocked him making a complaint because he lives out of the country.

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 significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council is the local safeguarding authority. This means it is responsible to ensure vulnerable adults living in its area live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. Mr D raised concerns about Mr E, who lived in the Council’s area.
7. The Council visited Mr E and decided there was no evidence he was at any risk. It told Mr D this and closed the case. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision, even though Mr D strongly disagrees with it.
8. Mr E has since died, so no longer needs any safeguarding. So, there is no worthwhile outcome now achievable from an Ombudsman investigation. Mr D’s disappointment at how the Council handled his enquiry is not a significant enough injustice to justify any further investigation.
9. Mr D is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, not enough evidence of a significant injustice, and no worthwhile outcome we could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman