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 what was proportionate action in the circumstances. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B said the Council failed to apply its safeguarding duties, which left him unprotected for years from abuse by several professional bodies. Mr B said the Council referred him to the bodies accused of abuse and did nothing to help him. Mr B said he has been the victim of harassment, victimisation, and degrading treatment in breach of his human rights. Mr B has suffered prolonged distress and decline in his mental health and has lost trust in public services.
2. Mr B wants the Council to acknowledge and apologise for failing to meet its safeguarding duties. Mr B said the Council should ensure there is an independent safeguarding enquiry about the continuing abuse. The Council needs training to identify when there is institutional abuse by state agencies.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. Mr B says issues are continuing. We could consider events in the twelve months before complaining to us. But I can see no good reason why Mr B could not complain sooner about events he describes as going on for years.
5. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council spoke with him and considered all evidence available from its files. An Ombudsman investigation would consider the same information, so it is unlikely we would achieve a different outcome.
10. The Council is the local safeguarding authority. It is responsible to protect the rights of vulnerable people in its area to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect.
11. Although Mr B disagrees with decisions the Council made, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process. The Council completed safeguarding enquiries and directed Mr B to relevant complaints procedures as a more suitable way to have his concerns considered about the professional bodies. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take, so the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise that decision even though Mr B strongly disagrees.
12. The Council’s view is there is no evidence to suggest continuing abuse, neglect or harm. If Mr B has evidence to support otherwise, he should provide it to the Council so it can review the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find enough evidence of fault. An Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to add anything to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman