Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding to allow an estranged relative to visit their family member in a care home. There was some fault by the Council in its level of communication but it has offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Mrs Y, who is now deceased, about the following:
• The Council allowed Mrs Y's daughter access to visit her despite the concerns Ms X raised.
• The Council breached Ms X’s confidentiality by sharing her email address with others in a group email which included Mrs Y's daughter.
• The Council's social worker failed to return telephone calls as a matter of urgency.
2. Ms X said as a result she was unable to be with Mrs Y during her final moments before she passed away and this was Mrs Y’s wishes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about the Council sharing her email address in a group email. Ms X has already complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office and it is a more appropriate it considers her concerns about a data breach.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. 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

10. In early August 2025, Mrs Y moved into a care home. At this time the Council had assessed Mrs Y as not having capacity to make decision about her care and Ms X had been nominated as her next of kin.
11. In early September 2025, the Council received a safeguarding alert from Mrs Y’s daughter about Ms X. This related to Ms X’s handling of Mrs Y’s finances and interference in Mrs Y’s will. Very shortly after the Council received a further safeguarding alert from Ms X about the actions of Mrs Y’s daughter. Ms X said Mrs Y’s daughter was estranged after being abusive towards Mrs Y and had contacted Mrs Y to gain access to her property and will.
12. The Council decided to progress this to a safeguarding enquiry. As part of this it spoke to Ms X and Mrs Y’s daughter and the care home where Mrs Y was living.
13. In mid-October 2025, the Council held a meeting to discuss the safeguarding issues. The care provider also attended this meeting. The Council decided that both Ms X and Mrs Y’s daughter would be able to visit her in the care home with supervision from the care home staff. The Council found that Mrs Y was not at risk of physical or psychological harm from visits with her daughter or Ms X. The Council also decided the visits would be supervised to protect Mrs Y and in future if there was a conflict over a decision about Mrs Y’s care a best interests decision would be made.
14. In coming to this decision the Council considered:
• The evidence provided by Mrs X about Mrs Y’s daughter not having contact with her and being abusive in the past.
• The Council spoke with the care home to get its input in Mrs Y’s daughter’s visits and how Mrs Y had reacted.
• That no one had lasting power of attorney for Mrs Y and while Ms X was named as next of kin, Mrs Y’s daughter was her nearest blood relative. The Council also considered Mrs Y’s right to a family life.
• The police had decided it was taking no action against either Ms X or Mrs Y’s daughter about any of these allegations and believed that under supervision, Mrs Y would not come to any harm if both Ms X and Mrs Y’s daughter were allowed to visit.
15. After the meeting the Council emailed the outcome to all parties, however the social worker did not make the email addresses of the email recipients private.
16. Ms X complained to the Council on 30 October 2025. Ms X said the Council had breached safeguarding by allowing Mrs Y’s daughter to visit her. Ms X said she told the social worker of the daughter’s abusive past. Ms X also complained to Council breached her confidentiality by allowing the daughter to see her email address. Ms X complained the social worker had not returned her telephone calls as a matter of urgency.
17. In early November 2025, Mrs Y passed away.
18. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in December 2025. The Council said:
• It held a meeting to discuss the safeguarding concerns raised. The outcome of this was to allow Ms X and Mrs Y’s daughter both access to visit Mrs Y under supervision. The Council explained its rationale for this decision.
• It did not want to become involved in a family dispute about Mrs Y’s will as this was a civil matter and it shared any concerns it received about abuse of Mrs Y with the police to investigate.
• It regretted the distress caused by the group email where the social worker did not make private everyone’s email addresses and will provide training for staff.
• It apologised for the level of communication Ms X received as the social worker did not respond to her telephone calls in a timely fashion.
19. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
21. The Council received two concerns about Mrs Y’s welfare. One from Mrs Y’s daughter and one from Ms X. Both Mrs Y’s daughter and Ms X were alleging Mrs Y had suffered or was suffering abuse from the other.
22. In response to this the Council opened a safeguarding enquiry. As part of this it spoke to the relevant people and obtained the care provider’s view on the concerns. The Council also engaged with the police to find out whether it was taking any action.
23. The Council decided Mrs Y’s daughter and Ms X could visit Mrs Y separately with supervision from the care provider. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding visiting arrangements for Mrs Y. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. This is because the Council has shown it considered the evidence available to it and explained its rationale for making this decision.
24. The Council decided as there was no lasting power of attorney Mrs Y’s daughter was her closest living blood relative and the Council did not consider the visits would harm Mrs Y. The Council also recognised Ms X was named as next of kin. The Council checked with the police who were taking no action against Mrs Y’s daughter or Ms X. The Council also considered Ms Y’s right to a family life when deciding to allow both to visit her in the care home. While Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to allow Mrs Y’s daughter to visit her and says this was against her wishes, I have not found any fault in how the Council came to its decision.
25. In relation to Ms X’s complaint about the communication from the social worker, the Council recognised there was some fault by the social worker as they did not return some calls in a timely manner. The Council apologised for this. I do not consider further investigation on this point would achieve anything more and consider an apology a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault with how the Council handled the safeguarding enquiry. There was fault with how a social worker communicated with Ms X but the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman