Summary: There was some delay on the part of the Council in obtaining information as part of a historic safeguarding complaint and that caused distress and frustration for Mrs T. The Council agrees to apologise for that delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs T (the complainant) says the Council failed to pursue the care provider promptly for information in connection with a safeguarding complaint; she also says the Council failed to give her daughter a voice during the safeguarding process.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. We previously investigated a related complaint by Mrs T.
5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs T and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs T and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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)

What happened

8. Mrs T’s daughter G was resident in a placement in 2022 where some issues of concern arose. These included

• Being left alone in the house without staff

• An incident while swimming in a public swimming bath

• Absconding to the local church without staff support.

9. In January 2025, after G had left that placement and after a previous safeguarding enquiry had been closed, the Council agreed (on being additional evidence by Mrs T) to open a historic safeguarding enquiry into what had happened. It reported to Mrs T in February 2026 with the outcome of the enquiry – that it found neglect and omission was experienced - and confirmation that it was now closed.
10. Mrs T complained to the Council about the way it had conducted the investigation. She said its consideration of the evidence she had submitted since the middle of 2024 had been inadequate. She said the Council had continued to ignore evidence of falsehood and dishonesty in the records of the care provider. She said the Council had delayed in reviewing the new evidence of serious incidents.
11. The Council responded to the complaint. It apologised for the delays in reviewing the evidence but pointed out that as G had since left the placement, there was no risk to her. It said it had reviewed the records kept by the care provider but found no evidence of dishonesty and therefore no need to contact the care provider about this point, or about her concern that malicious allegations had been made about her personally as there was no evidence found of these. It confirmed that although it had considered the new evidence Mrs T had submitted, it did not intend to reopen the previous enquiry.
12. Mrs T complained to the Ombudsman. She complained it had taken over a year for the Council to complete its safeguarding enquiry and she had not always been kept up to date about progress. She also complained that the Council had failed to prioritise G’s voice in stating the impact of supported living on her, and so future placements might be affected by inaccurate records. She has provided evidence that although she thought it would be detrimental to G’s progress for the social care staff to ask G questions during the safeguarding process, she agreed this could be undertaken with an advocate present, but that never happened.
13. The Council acknowledges it took too long to complete the safeguarding enquiry. Its chronology of events between January 2025 and February 2026 show action was taken between February and July 2025 but stalled after that. The Council points out that the care provider was no longer providing care to G at that stage and so there was no risk to her. However, it accepts that it had a responsibility to act in a timely manner in pursuing the investigation. It apologises for that delay and for its failure to provide updates.

Analysis

14. The Council accepts there was some delay in the way it pursued the historic safeguarding enquiry. That was fault which caused distress and frustration to Mrs T.
15. Mrs T wants the Council also to look at matters which were closed as part of the earlier investigation (and which therefore formed part of the Ombudsman’s previous decision). The Council has not found evidence to support a reopening of that matter. As G has long since left that placement, the Council is entitled to take the view that it would not be proportionate to go over that ground again.
16. I have not seen evidence that G personally was involved in the safeguarding process. Although her views were strongly represented by others, that is not the same as giving her an opportunity personally to express them. But I do not see there is an achievable outcome to be gained by pursuing that now, so long after the events.
17. I recognise Mrs T has fears about G’s future care and concerns that historical records might influence that. Those concerns, if realised, would in my view be more legitimately and usefully addressed as current issues in the annual review process. Mrs T also suggests the Council should find a “proportionate means of linking or cross-referencing materially relevant later evidence and findings” to (G)'s historical safeguarding record.

Action

18. Within one month of my decision the Council will formally apologise to Mrs T and G for the delays in completing the 2025 safeguarding investigation and updating them on progress. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

20. I find some evidence of fault causing injustice, which can be remedied by completion of the recommendation at paragraph 17.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman