Summary: We will not investigate Miss V’s complaint about London Borough of Lambeth’s safeguarding investigation. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss V complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs V (now deceased) about London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) safeguarding investigation. She says the Council did not consider the family’s views. Also, the Council delayed providing the safeguarding report and did not share the evidence it based its decision on. Miss V says that caused her frustration, time and trouble and distress. She would like the Council to apologise and to reinvestigate her concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. Miss V had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Key facts

4. A hospital (the Trust) admitted Mrs V on 9 June 2020. The Trust made a safeguarding referral to the Council because of significant moisture damage to Mrs V’s sacrum (the base of the spine). District nurses had previously supported Mrs V.
5. The Council agreed to carry out a safeguarding investigation. On 12 and 15 June, a social worker (who carried out the investigation) spoke with Miss V about the safeguarding concerns.
6. On 24 June, the Council told Miss V the social worker had requested a report from the Trust to consider as part of the investigation. A week later, the Council told Miss V it had asked the Trust to provide its report by 10 July.
7. The Trust sent its report to the Council in late July.
8. In mid-August, the Council sent its safeguarding investigation outcome to Miss V. It decided there was no evidence of neglect by the district nurses before 9 June.
9. One month later, Miss V raised questions about the accuracy of the safeguarding investigation. As those concerns related to Mrs V’s care and treatment, the Council referred the concerns to the Trust to address.
10. In response to Miss V’s complaint, the Council apologised if she felt she was not involved in the safeguarding enquiry. A social worker spoke to her twice and shared the outcome. It agreed to amend the safeguarding investigation report to include Miss V’s concerns about the accuracy of information. Also, it based its decision on information from many parties.

Analysis

Lack of family input

11. I have decided not to investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The social worker spoke with Miss V twice during the safeguarding investigation. I am satisfied Miss V had a fair chance to raise her concerns during the safeguarding investigation. I have no reason to doubt the social worker did not consider those concerns among other evidence during the investigation.

Delay

12. I have decided not to investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The safeguarding investigation took just over two months to complete. The main reason for any delay was the Trust completing its report for the Council. That was outside of the Council’s control. I am satisfied the Council appropriately chased the Trust’s report and did not contribute to any unnecessary delays.

Not sharing evidence

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is to do with access to information. Miss V should therefore complain to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The ICO deals with complaints about public authorities’ failure to comply with data protection legislation. This includes failing to disclose information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We should not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. Also, we cannot consider complaints about access to information from local authorities.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman