Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adult safeguarding enquiry. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not conduct a safeguarding enquiry relating to her father’s (Mr Z’s) care correctly or address all of her concerns. She said the Council focused on administration rather than resulting negligence in care. She said the enquiry took over a year and the social worker had a conflict of interests.
2. Ms X said the Care Provider’s actions caused Mr Z to die unnecessarily and in pain. She wanted the Council to reconsider its enquiry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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. Mr Z died in late 2023. Ms X reported the matter to the Council as she was concerned neglect had contributed to Mr Z’s death. The Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry. It upheld the concern due to poor record-keeping and information-sharing. Ms X complained to us about the Care Provider’s actions.
7. We decided in February 2025 not to investigate Ms X’s complaint, explaining we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by doing so.
8. Ms X has now complained to us specifically about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry. She says while the Council upheld the concern, it focused on administration rather than coming to conclusions about neglect. She says the process took too long and the social worker had a conflict of interests.
9. While the previous complaint we considered was not specifically about the Council’s enquiry, we said:
• further investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes;
• appropriate recommendations had been implemented by the care home and the Council;
• Mr Z’s outstanding care charges had been written off, which was a significantly higher remedy than we could achieve; and
• investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.
10. We also could not achieve anything more meaningful for Ms X by investigating this subsequent complaint. This is because:
• we could not say Mr Z’s death was caused by the Care Provider. Only a coroner could come to this conclusion;
• while the time it took the Council to complete the enquiry may have led to some frustration for Ms X, we would not likely say any delay had caused a significant injustice. Mr Z had already died, so any delay in the enquiry did not cause a delay in protective action;
• there is no substantive evidence any conflict of interests led to a lack of scrutiny by the social worker. They asked the Care Provider for information on several occasions and challenged it about the lack of record-keeping; and
• further investigation could not achieve the answers Ms X seeks, because the lack of records means both the Council, and we, simply could not come to sound conclusions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman