Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns about his mother and the Council’s delay in providing an advocate for him. He said this caused him significant frustration, distress and uncertainty with his own vulnerabilities. We did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions and conduct of Council officers when his mother was admitted to hospital in Spring 2022 and it conducted a safeguarding investigation. He was prevented from having contact with her for months and it would not tell her where she was. He also says the Council has delayed in providing him with an advocate. This has caused Mr X significant distress and frustration due to his own vulnerabilities.

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 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr X complains about events from 2022. He first complained to the Council in December 2022. This is more than 12 months before he came to us in July 2024. The complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 3). It took time for his complaint to complete the Council’s complaint process in February 2024 before he came to us in July 2024. Taking this into account, and Mr X’s vulnerabilities, I exercised discretion to consider the aged events complained of, up until February 2024 which is when Mr X received the Council’s final complaint response.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X, considered his views and the information he provided.
7. I considered the information the Council provided in relation to the complaint.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Safeguarding

9. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (Section 42, Care Act 2014)

Background

10. Mr X has mental health issues and care and support needs. Mr X’s complaint is mainly about the Council’s actions in relation to his mother (“Mrs Y”). Mr X did not bring this complaint on her behalf, so I am only considering whether there was fault by the Council causing significant injustice to Mr X himself, in how it investigated the safeguarding concerns.
11. This means I am unable to share with Mr X the information the Council provided for this investigation about Mrs Y, and I cannot go into specific detail in this statement. I have considered all of the Council’s records objectively as an independent party to the complaint, with regard to the concerns Mr X raised.
12. Before the events of this complaint, Mrs Y lived at home with Mr X. She was in her eighties. Mr X had Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPA”) for her finances and health and welfare.

What happened – summary of key relevant events and key facts

13. In Spring 2022, Mrs Y was taken to hospital. During her stay, the Council’s safeguarding officers became involved due to concerns about actions by Mr X, including with Mrs Y’s finances. She was later placed into a respite home.
14. Mr X said this was wrong as there had been no issues between him and Mrs Y and they had a good relationship.
15. During this period, despite asking many times, Mr X said the Council would not allow him to contact her. He was told they did not have Mrs Y’s consent to tell him where she was. He also said she lacked capacity, and the Council did not have due consideration of her dementia diagnosis.
16. In summer 2022, the Council’s safeguarding officer and social worker met with Mr X to discuss the situation. They made clear what Mrs Y’s wishes were and the concerns they had. Mr X acknowledged and apologised. He mentioned his own vulnerabilities due to historic experiences.
17. In late autumn 2022, Mrs Y returned home to live with Mr X. The Council closed its safeguarding case.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

18. In December 2022, Mr X formally complained to the Council. He had no contact with Mrs Y for over four months when she went to a respite home and the Council did not make him aware of the investigation at the time. He said the Council failed to provide him with an advocate. He said Mrs Y had told him a different version of events, and so the Council had not investigated properly and had bullied him.
19. Between early 2023 and early 2024, the Council met with Mr X a number of times to discuss his complaint. This included contact with Mr X’s advocate from an Independent Advocacy Agency (“IAA”). Mr X had continuing dissatisfaction with the Council’s investigation into his complaint.
20. In February 2024, the Council sent a final complaint response to Mr X. Relevant to my investigation, it said:
• It was satisfied it acted on Mrs Y’s wishes at the time and she made these decision without duress and with capacity.
• Due to the nature of the safeguarding concerns, it had to restrict what information could be shared with Mr X about the investigation. It had closed the case at the request of Mrs Y, with no further action taken.
• It did not agree the safeguarding officer had bullied Mr X. It noted they had difficult conversations with him to get their points clearly across to him with some repetition of information. It apologised if their approach to communication caused him frustration but that was not their intention.
• It noted it had made an advocacy referral for him to Charity A in summer 2022, but it had not followed up. It apologised for the delay and upheld this part.
21. In July 2024, Mr X’s advocate from the IAA brought his complaint to us.
22. I spoke to Mr X to discuss his complaint. I asked for more details about the advocate he said the Council failed to provide him, and why he requested one and for what purpose. Mr X initially said he did not know why, but the Council offered an advocate and had delayed with this.
23. In later contact, Mr X said to me it was an advocate originally promised by the Council at a home visit by Adult Social Care (“ASC”) in 2022, from Charity B to assist with his current issues. It was not a complaint advocate.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

24. To understand more about the advocacy part of Mr X’s complaint, I reviewed the Council’s case notes made at the time, summarised below:
• In May 2022, Mr X contacted the Council wanting support regarding his thoughts about his historic experiences
• In late June 2022, ASC visited Mr X for a care review. The notes did not record a request or offer of an advocate, with no mention of Charity B.
• In July 2022, the Council made an advocacy referral to Charity A.
• In December 2022, part of Mr X’s formal complaint refers to him not receiving an advocate from Charity B by ASC.
• In January 2023, the Council made a new referral to the IAA for an advocate for Mr X, in response to his formal complaint. The IAA confirmed receipt of the referral for community advocacy and passed it to its local team.
• At the end of January 2023, Mr X confirmed he would let his advocate know about a scheduled complaint meeting. He later said his advocate could not attend and asked the Council for another advocate from Charity B to support him.
• Mr X attended the complaint meeting. The ASC Manager explained to Mr X the recent referral to the IAA and provided him with the details. They also acknowledged the delay with the referral made the previous year to Charity A.
• In November 2023, ASC made a home visit to Mr X for a care review. He also discussed advocacy and mentioned previous work with Charity C with mental health issues around his historic experiences. He stopped this due to the stress with the safeguarding investigation into Mrs Y at the time. ASC contacted Charity C to ask if it could offer support to Mr X as it previously did.

Analysis

Safeguarding

25. As stated in Paragraph 11, I am limited in what I can share in this statement. I have read through the relevant investigation documents, case notes, records of interactions with Mr X. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure in how it progressed its safeguarding investigation. It had careful considerations throughout about relevant matters such as capacity, consent, and the sharing of any information. This is what we would expect and is appropriate. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions here.
26. Mr X said the Council’s safeguarding officer bullied him. I recognise Mr X understandably felt uncomfortable and distressed with sensitive questions about his actions and Mrs Y’s wellbeing. But given the nature of the matters, this is unlikely to have been avoidable. Mr X has his own vulnerabilities, and I consider the officers tried to make points directly and clearly to keep him focussed on the discussion when he raised separate issues. These are difficult conversations but from the Council’s records at the time, I have not seen evidence of significant concerns with the conduct of officers or with how the Council communicated with Mr X. I do not find fault. It apologised if Mr X felt frustrated, but this was not the intention of the officers – I consider the Council’s acknowledgement is appropriate.

Advocate

27. I have considered the evidence and information provided by both parties on this part of Mr X’s complaint. Given the significant time since 2022, there is difficulty in investigating as it is unclear for what purpose Mr X wanted, or expected, this advocate for. I also recognise reliability on recollection and memories from that time is likely to be reduced.
28. From the ASC home visit in 2022, I cannot see evidence to show whether the advocate was offered by the Council or requested by Mr X, but in any event, the Council made a referral to Charity A for advocacy the next month. It is not clear for what type of advocacy. Without specific evidence, on balance of probabilities, I consider it was likely to be advocacy for mental health issues Mr X felt at the time, including with his historical experiences.
29. In response to Mr X’s complaint in December 2022, the Council made a new referral to the IAA for community advocacy and updated Mr X, apologising for the delay. These actions are appropriate.
30. Between February 2023 and November 2023, Mr X and the Council had ongoing discussions about his complaint. It is not until November 2023 when Mr X mentions advocacy again at a care review with ASC. He also had an IAA advocate supporting him with his complaint. The Council noted his concerns and made contact with Charity C about him. These actions are appropriate.
31. I appreciate Mr X was frustrated as he says the Council has not provided an advocate from a specific organisation for his mental health. However, the Council is not under a duty to provide this. This does not warrant a formal finding of fault causing significant injustice. Records suggest Mr X disengaged with some work around mental health due to the stress of the safeguarding investigation, so if the Council had not delayed with the advocacy referral in July 2022, on balance of probabilities, I cannot say it was likely he would have engaged with an advocate on similar issues and therefore missed out on support.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns and later signposted him to the IAA. This is an appropriate advocacy agency, which Mr X has used to support him with his complaint. It appears the IAA provides different types of advocacy, including community advocacy around mental health issues which seemed suited to what Mr X may have wanted. It would be reasonable for Mr X to ask the IAA for further support with this type of advocacy. Additionally with Charity C, Mr X previously accessed it independently of the Council. It would be open to him (or with support from his advocate) to directly re-engage with it if he wishes. I do not consider the above is solely down to the Council.
33. I appreciate Mr X said he still wanted an advocate from the Council based on an understanding from 2022. I have considered up until February 2024. I consider it may be beneficial for Mr X and the Council to have clearer and open conversations about any outstanding advocacy issues to move this forward.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I do not uphold the complaint. I did not find fault causing significant injustice with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman