Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about bias and collusion. We found the Council’s investigation was inadequate and lacked sufficient evidence for its assurances. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the outcome may have been different. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise and consider the complaint at stage two of its corporate complaints procedure without delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint. He complains that:
1. Due to a personal friendship a social worker had been colluding with two former members of staff to persuade service users to transfer to a new organisation;
2. The social workers’ manager refused to take this allegation seriously, demonstrating bias; and
3. The Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral made regarding a visit to a service user during lockdown.
2. Mr X says his organisation has suffered reputational damage, loss of staff and income.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents they provided. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X runs a not for profit organisation (Company A) that works with the Council to help and support young people transitioning from children services to adult services.
7. Mr X says there had been incidents with two former members of staff who having resigned set up their own alternative organisation, Company B. Mr X said vulnerable service users were being coerced into transferring their care package from Company A to Company B and the Council was aware of this.
8. On 23 April 2020 Company A raised a safeguarding concern. It said one of its former members of staff (F) had visited a vulnerable service user (H) who was shielding at home, putting them at significant risk. It said F had been visiting H every week for a meal during the Covid-19 lockdown. The referral was made by Manager C.
9. On 24 April 2020 the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) contacted Company A about the referral. It spoke to Manager D as Manager C was not available. Manager D said they were not aware if H had capacity to make decisions around visitors; was not clear who was paying for the meals and that F had been verbally abusive and aggressive towards its staff at the home visit.
10. MASH considered the information and decided there was no clear allegation of abuse. MASH referred the case to Social Worker 1 for follow up and to see if a best interest decision was required if H lacked capacity.
11. On 4 May 2020 Social Worker 1 contacted Company A. Manager C said they were not aware that F had been aggressive toward its staff and there were no concerns about financial abuse. Social Worker 1 explained that it was Company A’s responsibility to inform F that H was shielding. Social Worker 1 concluded that no further action was required as all the matters raised had been dealt with.
12. On 12 May 2020 a meeting was held between Company A, Social Worker 1, and their line manager. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the concerns that were then the subject of Mr X’s complaint to the Council.
13. A month later Mr X formally complained to the Council. He said he had evidence to suggest that Social Worker 1 had agreed to transfer customers from Company A to Company B, including the package of support for H. Mr X said the social worker’s line manager had refused to take the allegations made seriously, showed a lack of objectivity during the meeting and made unfair and unsubstantiated criticism of Company A and its new manager. Mr X also said that the Council had failed to adequately investigate the safeguarding referral.
14. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaint’s procedure and spoke to Mr X to clarify the details of his complaint.
15. The Council did not uphold the complaint but acknowledged that it had a ‘slightly more negative view’ of Company A and that the new manager was not viewed as positively as their predecessor. The Council said there was no evidence that, packages of care were being transferred to Company B nor that the relationship between Social Worker 1 and former employees of Company A was personal rather than professional. It did accept there was a lack of clarity about F’s role since leaving Company A; citing that the basis for their continued involvement with H was not specified and their role had become blurred with no clear accountability.
16. Mr X remained unsatisfied and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. The Council declined on the basis the complaint had been considered by an independent officer and “a proportionate consideration” of the issues had been undertaken.

Analysis

17. I have some concerns about how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s single response to the complaint lacks sufficient evidence for its assurances and statements. I would have expected the investigating officer to have interviewed relevant staff; request further evidence from Company A if deemed necessary; reviewed the actions following the safeguarding referral and given detailed and evidence based reasons for why it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
18. I find the investigation was limited in its scope and fails to sufficiently address concerns about collusion and bias. It is unclear whether the Council properly investigated the issues about the transfer of packages from Company A to Company B.
19. Furthermore, the Council’s response appears contradictory. The Council accepts that a role became “blurred and with no clear accountability”; confirms the bad atmosphere existing over a year; accepts failing to address the issues arising from the safeguarding referral and acknowledged the new manager was not viewed as positively as their predecessor. It then disregards this and relies on subjective evidence as a reason not to investigate parts of the complaint.
20. I find the Council was at fault in the way it investigated Mr X’s complaint. As a result, it failed to ensure the issues of complaint were properly considered and Mr X has missed out on the opportunity to have his complaint considered at stage two of the Council’s corporate complaints procedure. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
21. I have considered whether the Ombudsman should investigate this complaint or ask the Council to re-investigate. However, given the Council’s inadequate response at stage one, I have concluded it should conduct a stage two investigation as per its corporate complaints procedure.

Agreed action

22. The Council will take the following action within four weeks of this decision:
1. Arrange a stage two investigation immediately into Mr X’s complaint under the corporate complaints procedure; and
2. Apologise to Mr X for failing to ensure his complaint was properly considered and for the distress and uncertainty this caused him.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

24. I have not investigated the substantive matters. This is because the Council has not yet properly considered them. If Mr X remains dissatisfied when the Council has completed its complaints process, he can bring these matters back to the Ombudsman. He should do so within 12 months of the Council’s final response, unless there is a good reason that prevents him from doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman