Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr G and Mr H’s complaint about the Council. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add to the response they have already received.

The complaint

1. Mr G and Mr H complain about a visit from a social worker, in response to a safeguarding referral made by a hospital Trust. Mr G and Mr H said the social worker did not listen to them, did not establish the facts and undermined Mr G. Mr G said this put Mr H at risk by empowering him to stop Mr G entering the property. Mr G also said the Council did not take appropriate action to safeguard Mr H.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we can add to any previous investigation by the organisations, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In reaching this decision, I have considered information provided by Mr G. I have also considered information from the Council.
4. Mr G and Mr H had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

5. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says that a council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk.
6. On 10 January, the hospital trust where Mr H had been admitted made a safeguarding referral to the Council’s adult social care team. A social worker subsequently visited Mr H on 30 January to discuss Mr H’s needs and views, and to assess whether he had need of protection. Mr G was also at the meeting. On 31 January, the safeguarding enquiry was concluded as “not substantiated”.
7. Mr G complained to the Council about the meeting. He said the social worker had a pre-conceived agenda about him and did not listen to him. Mr G said this undermined him and subsequently put Mr H at risk. Mr G also complained that the social worker did not understand the legal framework he had put in place regarding the property Mr H lived in, nor the support he was providing to Mr H, and that the social worker made inaccurate comments about this.
8. In response to the complaint, the Council said it was acting within its powers under section 42 of the Care Act 2014, based on receipt of concerns raised by a third party. The Council said the purpose of the meeting was to “determine if [Mr H] was at risk of harm… ascertain [Mr H’s] views and wishes and to assess the need for protection given his mental capacity to make relevant decisions… [the Council] also assessed that [Mr H’s] circumstances did not meet the threshold for further enquiry under Section 42 of the Care Act and closed the case the next day. At that point [the Council] confirmed that the relevant agencies were aware of [Mr H’s] needs for support.”
9. An investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to add to the response Mr G and Mr H have already received from the Council. The Council response explained the meeting was held in response to safeguarding concerns and, having considered the concerns raised, it decided the safeguarding concern was not substantiated. The Council said it made this decision regardless of any issues relating to the property. The Council also said Mr H’s GP and support agency knew of his need for ongoing support once the safeguarding referral was closed, and it did not consider the meeting put Mr H at risk. Based on the information available, this seems a reasonable explanation for the decision to close the safeguarding enquiry.
10. The Council acknowledged that the social worker had “talked over” some of Mr G’s comments during the meeting, and that this may have made Mr G uncomfortable. The Council apologised for this, and said it would discuss it directly with the social worker.
11. The Council has given a reasonable explanation for why the meeting was held, and set out the next steps taken to support Mr H. Mr G said he felt undermined during the meeting, and the Council offered appropriate apologies for the social worker talking over him. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything further to the explanation the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Decision

The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman