Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding adults enquiry. We would not be able to achieve significantly more by investigating and there would be no worthwhile outcome in doing so.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to consult with her and her brother as advocates of a family member. Ms X said this had an impact on her financially and emotionally.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We consider 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:

• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A member of Ms X’s family died following a hospital admission for seizure activity. The family member had been a resident of a care home in the Council borough.
6. Paramedics raised a safeguarding concern because of an apparent delay in calling for medical support. The Council began a safeguarding enquiry following the death of the family member.
7. The coroner completed an inquest into the death, and it acknowledged there was a missed opportunity to identify the seizure earlier. However, it did not conclude this caused or contributed to the death of the family member.
8. Ms X said she and her brother were not properly consulted as part of the safeguarding enquiry. Ms X also said the Council failed to consult a key witness.
9. The available evidence appears to show the family and key witness were involved in the inquest and that the Council used this to conduct its enquiry. The Council has provided examples of when it did consult the family.
10. Although no recommendations were made by the coroner, the Council recommended learning for the care provider to improve its understanding of epilepsy. It is unlikely we could achieve more than this.
11. Because we cannot determine liability, or in this case decide the care provider’s actions led to the death of Ms X’s family member, we cannot recommend compensatory payments for loss of earnings, personal injury, or costs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we would not be able to achieve significantly more by investigating and there would be no worthwhile outcome in doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman