Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to safeguarding concerns raised about Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence which supports Mr X’s claims that the Council made unfavourable assumptions about him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not conducted sufficiently robust safeguarding enquiries into the wellbeing of his mother, Mrs Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I have:

• considered the complaint and supporting information submitted by Mr X;
• considered the correspondence between Mr X and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
• considered relevant legislation;
• offered Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says a safeguarding duty applies where an adult:

• has needs for care and support;
• is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect; and
• as a result of those care and support needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.

6. If the section 42 threshold is met, then the Council must make enquiries or cause others to do so. An enquiry should establish whether any action needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect and if so, by whom.
7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Care Act work together to promote the empowerment, safety and wellbeing of adults with care and support needs. Section 44 of the MCA prioritises people’s safety by making willful neglect or mistreatment of an adult who lacks capacity to make decisions a criminal offence.
8. There is nothing in the Care Act that replaces or undermines the MCA when it comes to making decisions with or on behalf of adults who lack capacity. There are five principles of the Act that need consideration:

• Assume that a person has capacity to make decisions, unless there is evidence otherwise.
• Do all you can to maximize a person’s capacity.
• Unwise or eccentric decisions do not in themselves prove lack of capacity.
• If you are making a decision for or about a person who lacks capacity, act in their best interests.
• Look for the least restrictive option that will meet the need.

Key facts

9. The Council has requested the Ombudsman deal with the information it supplied during the course of this investigation under section 32(3) of the Local Government Act 1974. Section (32(3) prohibits the disclosure of information obtained during the course of an investigation. This means I unable to share the information with Mr X or go into any detail in this statement. Mr X can be reassured that I have considered all the Council’s records objectively and given careful consideration to the issues he raised.
10. Mrs Y is in her eighties and at the time of the events complained about lived independently in her own home.
11. Following a fall downstairs, Mrs Y was admitted to hospital, where it was discovered, she had a bleed on the brain. Mr X says he visited every day, but after discharge Mrs Y made false allegations about him, which Mr X says the Council failed to investigate properly. He says the Council failed to make proper enquiries and instead unfairly concluded he was not acting in Mrs Y’s best interests. As a result, Mr X has very limited contact with Mrs Y.
12. Mr X says the Council has accepted the word of Mrs Y’s male friend, and this individual may have dishonourable intentions regarding Mrs Y’s finances. Mr X says the male friend accompanied Mrs Y to the bank and to medical appointments, one of which he enquired if Mrs Y could manage her own affairs. He also replaced himself as the named contact on Mrs Y’s mobile telephone and broadband provider and intimated he would sell her car.
13. Mr X is concerned that Mrs Y may be vulnerable to persuasion from the male in question. Mr X does not believe the Council has sufficiently investigated this and instead has accepted the word of the male, and taken his mother’s reassurances at face value, without due consideration of her dementia diagnosis.

Evidence from the Council

14. A medical professional submitted a safeguarding referral to the Council raising concerns about the possibility Mrs Y may be subject to financial abuse.
15. Concerns over the management of Mrs Y’s financial affairs were also referred to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The OPG contacted the Council to inform it a referral had been received. I am unable to go into any further detail about this.
16. All the documents relating to the safeguarding enquiries are subject to section to 32(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 and are therefore confidential. I have considered all the safeguarding documents and I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure.
17. I have also considered all emails exchanged between Mr X and the Council, and between the Council and other professional bodies. I have also seen minutes of all meetings held. I am satisfied the Council acted without fault.
18. It is clear from the information I have seen that at the time of the events complained about, Mrs Y had capacity to make decisions about her day-to-day life, who she wished to live with, and who to have contact with.
19. As part of this investigation the Council provided records of all contact it had with Mr X, including emails, notes of telephone conversations and minutes of all meetings held. I have seen no evidence which supports Mr X’s claim that officers made unfavourable assumptions about him.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with safeguarding referrals Mr X made about Mrs Y’s welfare.
21. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman