Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about adult safeguarding. Part of the complaint has insufficient evidence of fault by the Council; part of it has insufficient injustice to justify an investigation; and we could not add any further meaningful outcome to the remaining part.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
• wrongly refused to open a Section 42 safeguarding enquiry and delayed in issuing its decision;
• failed to provide independent statutory advocacy;
• failed to correct inaccuracies within its reports; and
• refused to complete an Occupational Therapist (OT) stair assessment.
2. Miss X said these issues left her and her child exposed to avoidable risk and caused significant emotional distress.
3. Miss X wanted the Council to:
• acknowledge its alleged fault in the above matters;
• conduct an independent review;
• amend any inaccuracies in its reports;
• apologise; and
• provide training to its staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Safeguarding enquiry

7. Miss X made a self-referral to for a Section 42 safeguarding enquiry.
8. The Council considered Miss X’s referral and decided not to carry out an enquiry.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this issue. Its decision was in line with the criteria as set out at 14.2 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
10. The Council accepted there had been a delay in issuing its decision and said it would ensure that future decisions would be shared promptly. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve any further meaningful outcome for Miss X.

Advocacy

11. The Council considered Miss X’s request for an independent advocate but explained that she did not meet the relevant requirements and was able to advocate for herself. It did, however, communicate Miss X’s wishes and needs to other bodies to support her in this regard.
12. In any event, a Section 42 safeguarding enquiry had not been opened so the Council had no requirement to appoint an independent advocate for safeguarding.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision was in line with the guidance as set out at 7.10 to 7.15 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Amendments to reports

14. Miss X complained the Council failed to correct inaccuracies in its reports.
15. The Council explained that the correspondence Miss X was referring to, was an email containing a professional opinion, rather than a final decision. It added a note to the file to clarify this. It said that in future it would make sure emails clearly say when views are early observations and not final recommendations.
16. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council.

Occupational therapy assessment

17. Miss X said the Council’s decision not to complete an OT stair assessment, and the reasons provided, might have influenced decisions made by the housing body.
18. The Council explained the reasons for its decision and confirmed its professional view was not shared with the housing body.
19. It added that a Senior OT attended Miss X’s property shortly after and their assessment was considered by the housing body.
20. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council.
21. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• The complainant has suffered loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• There are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved.
22. The Council’s opinion was not shared with the housing body and did not prevent an assessment from being obtained. We will not investigate this complaint as any alleged injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because part of the complaint has insufficient evidence of fault by the Council; part of it has insufficient injustice to justify an investigation; and we could not add any further meaningful outcome to the remaining part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman