Summary: There was no fault in the information disclosed by the Council about one safeguarding matter, or in its decision to investigate another matter. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to restrict its disclosure of information about the safeguarding enquiries, as they are ongoing. There was some fault in the Council’s complaint handling, and while this did not cause an injustice to the complainant, the Council has agreed to amend its policy to prevent a recurrence.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr F.
2. Mr F complains about issues arising from safeguarding enquiries being undertaken by the Council, with regard to the care of his mother-in-law (‘Mrs C’) by him and his partner (‘Ms W’). Specifically, he says:

• he was wrongly told a concern about Mrs C’s medication originated with her GP, when the GP has told Mr F this was untrue; and
• the Council has investigated Mrs C’s finances without adequate explanation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 reviewed the records generated as part of the safeguarding enquiry, the Council’s general case notes, and its complaint correspondence with Mr F.

Back to top

What I found

6. In response to my enquiries on this case, the Council has provided a significant volume of information. However, the Council has confirmed its safeguarding enquiries are ongoing. For this reason, I am able to disclose only minimal information as part of this decision statement.
7. Mrs C suffers from dementia. In late 2017, Mr F and Ms W (Mrs C’s daughter) sold their home and moved into Mrs C’s house to care for her. More recently, Mrs C has been in long-term residential care at a care home.
8. In 2019, the Council received two safeguarding referrals about Mr F and Ms W’s care of Mrs C. It confirms the first referral did not progress to safeguarding enquiries.
9. The second referral related to Mr F and Ms W’s decision to move into Mrs C’s home, and whether this was in Mrs C’s best interests. The Council decided to undertake enquiries on this referral. As part of the enquiries, other concerns were identified: specifically that Mr F and Ms W were unnecessarily administering a sedative to Mrs C, which she did not need; and that Mr F and Ms W had mishandled Mrs C’s finances.
10. Separately, and for context, Mr F and Ms W had obtained Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Mrs C’s finances and property, and health and welfare matters. During the course of the Council’s enquiries, it made a referral to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to investigate the appropriateness of this. The OPG applied to the Court of Protection to revoke Mr F and Ms W’s LPA, which the court did in January 2021.
11. On 31 July 2020, Mr F submitted a Stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said he had received information from Mrs C’s GP about two comments made by the Council during the safeguarding enquiries: first, that he and Ms W had been seeking to take equity out of Mrs C’s home; and second, that they had made “substantial alterations” to the property since moving there.
12. Mr F said Mrs C had taken out an equity release mortgage in 2014, and that the solicitors involved had taken steps to ensure she was of ‘sound mind’ at the time. He also said the alterations they had made to Mrs C’s property were necessary to improve its saleability, and that he and Ms W had paid for the work themselves. Mr F accused social workers of speculation and “idle gossiping”.
13. After further contact with Mr F, the Council sent its formal Stage 1 response on 28 September. There were now three points to Mr F’s complaint:

• the discussion of Mrs C’s equity release mortgage;
• that in July a social worker had asked “leading questions”, related to a financial assessment for a proposed long-term residential care placement for Mrs C. Mr F questioned whether this was because of the OPG investigation; and
• that the Council had decided Mrs C should no longer receive direct payments to help her purchase care services.

14. The Council explained that social workers had become concerned about the status of Mrs C’s property. It said it could not be sure she could give consent to the alterations Mr F and Ms W had made, nor whether these were suited to her care needs. The Council explained the information about financial concerns had not originated with the GP, but had been discussed at a meeting where the GP was present. It said it had shared this information under its Care Act duties on a ‘need to know’ basis, to allow the concerns to be considered as part of the safeguarding enquiry, which it did not accept was inappropriate.
15. The Council said Mr F’s conversation with the social worker was not related to the investigation of the LPA held by him and Ms W. It explained that, because Mrs C had settled well into a care home during a short-term respite placement, it was now appropriate to consider whether she should remain there long-term. The status of Mrs C’s property was relevant to this consideration and so it was appropriate for this to be explored.
16. The Council also explained, under the Care Act, it is generally not permitted to use direct payments to pay for care from a relative living in the same home. As this had been Mrs C’s situation, the Council had decided it was not appropriate for her to receive direct payments.
17. Mr F submitted a Stage 2 complaint by email on 1 October. The Council responded on 30 October, addressing each of Mr F’s points in turn.
18. Mr F had first complained he had been told, at a meeting in March 2020, that it was Mrs C’s GP who had raised concerns about unnecessary administration of sedatives to her. He said the GP had since told him this was not true, and that they had made no such referral. Mr F commented that the Stage 1 response now said the GP had not made the referral, and was simply present at a meeting where the matter was discussed. Mr F questioned the credibility of the Council’s statements.
19. The Council replied to explain the comment in the Stage 1 response had been referring to the concerns about Mrs C’s finances. It was correct to say the GP had not raised these concerns. The concern about Mrs C’s medication was separate, and had originated from conversations between the Council and local clinical commissioning group (CCG), which included the GP.
20. The Council dismissed Mr F’s claim there were “two versions of events”, and reiterated the Council’s duty to undertake safeguarding enquiries under the Care Act. This process included regular meetings between different agencies.
21. Mr F said it was “ridiculous” he and Ms W had continued to care for Mrs C while being “accused of spurious allegations”. He questioned how there could be concerns over Mrs C’s medication, and asked what the enquiries were about if not medication. The Council explained again the enquiries were about both medication and finances.
22. Mr F asked the Council to disclose further information about the financial aspect of the enquiries, and how it had come to be aware of this, as he had not shared information about Mrs C’s equity release mortgage with the Council. The Council again reiterated its duty to undertake safeguarding enquiries, and said it would not disclose the names of individual social workers.
23. Mr F also again questioned the Council’s decision to stop Mrs C’s direct payments. He said the Council had withdrawn the payments “based on a spurious allegation”, and then attempted to implement a care package which was inappropriate for Mrs C’s needs. The Council replied that it had explained clearly why it had stopped the direct payments, and said Mrs C’s residential care placement was appropriate and meeting her needs.
24. The Council referred Mr F to the Ombudsman if he wished to pursue his complaint further. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman on 3 November.

Back to top

Legislative background

Safeguarding

25. 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. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Back to top

Analysis

26. Mr F has raised two broad points with the Ombudsman, which I will address in turn.
27. Mr F’s complaint to the Council also included a separate issue, about the Council’s decision to stop Mrs C’s direct payments. However, this point was addressed in a previous investigation by the Ombudsman, and so I will not refer to it any further here.

Origin of the concern about medication

28. Mr F complains he and Ms W were told, at a meeting in March 2020, that Mrs C’s GP had made a safeguarding referral to the Council about inappropriate administration of sedatives. He says the GP has told them they did not make any such referral, and that the Council has now confirmed the GP did not make the referral, but was merely present when the matter was discussed at a multi-agency meeting.
29. The minutes of the meeting in March 2020, to which Mr F has referred, say:

“[Officer’s name] disclosed that it was [Mrs C’s] doctor who raised the concerns around medication because the Zopiclone doses was increasing”

30. While the minutes do indicate the concerns about medication originated with the GP, they do not say the GP made a safeguarding referral about it. In fact, it is evident no party made a safeguarding referral specifically about the medication – rather, the concerns about medication arose during enquiries about a different referral.
31. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, and I can appreciate why Mr F may have conflated the two different concepts. However, I am satisfied the Council’s records show the medication concern arose through its discussions with healthcare, and so the officer’s comment during the meeting in March 2020 appears to have been accurate. I cannot comment on what the GP may have told Mr F, but there is no contradiction in the Council’s statements and no evidence it has fabricated anything.
32. In any case, I note the Council’s Stage 1 response was referring to the financial issue, not the medication issue, when it said the GP had not made this referral. This is a separate matter.
33. I find no fault here.

Discussion of Mrs C’s financial matters

34. Mr C complains the Council has discussed Mrs C’s financial matters without cause, which he describes as ‘idle gossip’, and that no specific allegations have been made to him and Ms W about this. He accuses the Council of relying on the Care Act to avoid disclosing information about this.
35. The Care Act places a duty on the Council to consider, and potentially make detailed enquiries about, referrals it receives pertaining to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. This includes allegations or evidence that a person is suffering financial abuse.
36. In this case, the Council received information which brought into question Mr F and Ms W’s conduct with regard to Mrs C’s finances. It was obliged to consider this, and in doing so, it decided to make enquiries. This was not ‘idle gossip’, but precisely what the law requires the Council to do. The law also allows the Council to share this information among other agencies involved in the safeguarding enquiry, where necessary.
37. This is not to say Mr F or Ms W are guilty of financial abuse, and I acknowledge that being subject to investigation in this manner is distressing. However, it is not for me to make my own decision about the merits of the evidence of abuse, and I cannot find fault simply because the Council has decided it should investigate.
38. And, while Mr F says the Council has made no specific allegation against him or Ms W, the enquiry remains ongoing.
39. As I have mentioned earlier in this statement, because of the ongoing nature of the enquiry I have disclosed only minimal information here. It is not clear how much information the Council itself has disclosed to Mr F and Ms W, although it appears they understand some details of the concerns about financial abuse.
40. The Ombudsman generally expects complainants to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) where their complaint is principally about data protection. This is because, unlike the Ombudsman, the ICO is an expert body for such matters, and has the power to enforce its judgements.
41. If Mr F feels the Council should disclose further information about the safeguarding enquiry, I consider this is a matter better addressed by the ICO. But on the limited basis of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction here, I consider the Council has good reasons to withhold information about the enquiry, and so on balance I do not consider this to be evidence of administrative fault.
42. I find no fault here.

Complaint handling

43. Although not part of Mr F’s complaint to the Ombudsman, I should also comment on some points about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
44. The Care Act says adult social care (ASC) complaints procedures should involve one internal stage, and that complainants should then be referred to the Ombudsman if they wish to pursue the matter further. In this case, however, the Council completed two internal stages before referring Mr F to the Ombudsman.
45. I also note that it was the same officer who responded to Mr F’s complaint, at both stages.
46. The Council has acknowledged that ASC complaints should normally have only one internal stage. However, it says its own policy allows for a further review under certain circumstances, where it considers this will be beneficial, which in this case it did.
47. Notwithstanding the requirements of the Care Act, I appreciate why it might be useful to undertake a second internal stage under some circumstances; and so, in isolation, I do not consider this a significant point.
48. However, if the Council does choose to have a second stage in its complaints procedure, in the interests of objectivity it should be a different officer who provides the response. And in fact I note the Council’s general (non-ASC) complaints policy, which always consists of two stages, specifically requires the second stage be addressed by a different, and more senior, officer, presumably for the same reason.
49. Therefore, while I do not find fault that there were two internal complaint stages here, I do find fault that both responses were provided by the same officer.
50. I am not persuaded this represents an injustice to Mr F. Although it is clear he is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, I have not found fault in the substance of his complaint. There is no reason to believe the Council’s second stage would have said anything significantly different, even if a different officer had provided the response.
51. But I do consider the Council should amend its ASC complaints policy to specify that, where a second stage is considered beneficial, a different, more senior officer should provide the response. I also consider the Council should notify staff it is making this change, to ensure they are aware of it.
52. I have made recommendations to this effect, which the Council has agreed.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• amend its ASC complaints policy, to specify that, where a decision is made to provide a second response, this should be addressed by a different, and more senior, officer than in the first stage; and
• alert relevant staff it has made this change to the policy.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman