Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding actions in 2025. This is because there is no significant injustice and no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y. Miss X said the Council was at fault because it needlessly delayed Mr Y’s, discharge from hospital, because of a safeguarding concern. Miss X said the Council did not initiate any safeguarding process and consequently, Mr Y could have had an earlier discharge. Miss X said this has caused Mr Y heightened anxiety, and she wants the Council to pay for Mr Y’s care.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s safeguarding procedures relating to Mr Y’s discharge from hospital. The evidence I have seen shows Miss X had concerns about the Council’s role, in relation to Mr Y’s discharge from hospital, which occurred in March 2025.
5. From the evidence I have seen Miss X was concerned Mr Y was held back for discharge from hospital by two additional overnight stays, before he was then allowed home. Miss X said she was told by professionals, including the Council, that there were safeguarding concerns raised, which prevented Mr Y being allowed home initially.
6. Miss X subsequently followed up on this and said there was no evidence of a safeguarding referral or tangible outcome and now believes Mr Y could have been allowed home sooner.
7. I will not investigate this complaint. There is no significant injustice to either Mr Y or Miss X, by any delay associated to Mr Y being allowed to leave the hospital. Or through the alleged failure by the Council to establish a formal process in response to issues raised at hospital.
8. Our role is to investigate complaints where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress. From the evidence I have seen, I am not satisfied this complaint reaches that threshold.
9. From the information I have seen, I would not be able to show, even on a balance of probabilities, what the impact on Mr Y was, directly linked to the Council’s actions, because of the nature of the discharge, which was a shared responsibility with health professionals. Additionally, Miss X has asked the Council to pay for Mr Y’s care support, and this is not something we can achieve in any case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant injustice and no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman