Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s social workers involvement with her late father, Mr Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council’s social workers conducted a meeting with another resident at her late father, Mr Y’s, nursing home and invited Mr Y to attend the meeting. Mrs X said it led the Council to unfairly raise a safeguarding alert. Mrs X also said a social worker was unprofessional. Mrs X said this caused her father and the family distress. She wants the Council to acknowledge it acted with fault.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y lived in a nursing home with his partner, Mrs Y. They both had separate rooms.
6. Mrs X said in March 2025, two social workers visited Mrs Y in her room to conduct an assessment with her. Mrs X said following the meeting, staff at the Nursing Home told her Mr Y had also attended the meeting in Mrs Y’s room and the Social Workers had not informed staff of this before the meeting. Mrs X then became aware the Social Workers had decided to raise a safeguarding alert in relation to Mr Y.
7. Mrs X said one of the Social Worker’s visited Mrs Y again in May 2025. Mrs X was visiting her father at the time. The Social Worker acknowledged Mr Y.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council and said:
• she wanted to know why the Social Workers asked Mr Y to attend a meeting in Mrs Y’s room which was about Mrs Y’s care and support and whether it was necessary to involve Mr Y in her care;
• the Social Workers had raised a safeguarding alert without speaking to her and other family members, staff at the Nursing Home and without background information about her father before doing so; and
• she was unhappy with the interaction she had with the Social Worker in May 2025. She said the Social Worker was judgmental and condescending towards her and was concerned if she had not been present, Mr Y would have attended another meeting with Mrs Y.
9. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint and in response it said:
• Mrs Y wanted Mr Y to attend the assessment with her and so the Social Workers invited Mr Y to attend. Mr Y agreed to attend. The meeting was conducted in Mrs Y’s room. The Council did not think this was inappropriate as there were no restrictions in place with Mr and Mrs Y visiting each other’s rooms;
• the Social Workers did not complete any assessments with Mr Y;
• Mr Y had disclosed some information to the Social Workers which was concerning. The Social Workers therefore raised a safeguarding alert to another council as it was the other Council’s responsibility to investigate the concerns due to Mr Y’s permanent location. The Council said Mr Y had capacity at the time and provided consent for the referral to go ahead. It advised Mrs X to contact the other Council if she had any concerns with the investigation; and
• after speaking with the Social Worker, it did not believe they were being inappropriate towards Mrs X.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council.
11. Mr Y agreed to attend the meeting with Mrs Y in her room. The Council confirmed no assessment of Mr Y was undertaken and there were no restrictions preventing Mr and Mrs Y from visiting each other's rooms.
12. Mr Y disclosed information which caused the Social Workers concern. The Social Workers were entitled to consider whether this information indicated a safeguarding concern and they had a duty to do so under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014. We would be critical of the Council if it did not take any action following Mr Y’s disclosure. We also would not expect the Council to delay making a referral until it had spoken with other parties. Furthermore, Mr Y consented to the referral being made.
13. The Council also correctly advised Mrs X to contact the other Council if she had any concerns with the investigation itself.
14. In relation to the May 2025 interaction, Mrs X and the Social Worker have different accounts of the conversation. In the absence of independent evidence to substantiate Mrs X's account, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Social Worker acted inappropriately. A further investigation would therefore not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman