Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take safeguarding action about the complainant’s services to individuals with social care needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council conducted its safeguarding investigation. Further, the complainant could reasonably take court action against the Council in respect of her allegations of negligence, defamation and a breach of her human rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs Z) provided care and support services to children and adults with special educational and social care needs by organising and holding a weekly social club. She complains the Council wrongly conducted a safeguarding investigation relating to the services she provided which led to her no longer being able to provide these. Mrs Z says the Council defamed her, was negligent and acted in a way which breached her human rights.
2. In summary, Mrs Z says the alleged fault has caused her a loss of earnings and damaged her business reputation. As a desired outcome, she wants the Council to compensate her for loss of earnings and to acknowledge malpractice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Having read Mrs Z’s complaint to us, it is clear her complaint is mainly that the Council has been negligent which in turn has resulted in her being defamed and her human rights being breached. Deciding about whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation.
7. I cannot decide whether an organisation has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Mrs Z’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through her insurers. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mrs Z cannot do this. The restriction I outline at paragraph four (above) applies and so I do not propose investigating these aspects of the complaint.
8. The only aspect of fault I consider we could investigate is whether the Council has properly followed a safeguarding process. Our role is not to ask whether it could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. The available evidence shows a safeguarding process has been followed by the Council. This included an investigation being commenced with Mrs Z being informed, evidence gathered and a strategy discussion taking place to inform an outcome. These steps comply with the Council’s safeguarding duties under the Care Act 2014. The outcome of the investigation identified concerns relating to a lack of governance over Mrs Z’s services and inappropriate conduct relating to pictures and videos of service users being uploaded online without their consent. Concerns were also flagged regarding Mrs Z frequently moving venues where her social events were held and leaving behind unpaid debts. I also note the Council has referred to a concern contained in police records which was discussed by its professionals at a strategy discussion meeting. The Council has invited Mrs Z to obtain this information from the police.
10. As a result of the strategy discussion, Mrs Z is no longer permitted to provide services to individuals whose needs are supported by the Council. In my view, the concerns identified by the Council are relevant, have been communicated to Mrs Z and followed an adequate safeguarding process involving other agencies. I see no evidence of fault. I recognise Mrs Z states these concerns and the outcome amount to defamation, negligence and a breach of her human rights. However, these are legal causes of action she can reasonably pursue through the courts. There is insufficient evidence of fault in my view to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council conducted its safeguarding investigation. Further, the complainant could reasonably take the legal issues she reference to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman