Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and communication failures in an adult safeguarding investigation. The Council has now completed the investigation and shared the findings. The Council has apologised for the impact of its fault and acted to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would add anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council delayed conducting an adult safeguarding investigation. The Council provided the outcome as meeting minutes rather than a report. This has caused stress to Ms B over a prolonged period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council is the local safeguarding authority. It is responsible for protecting vulnerable adults in its area from abuse or neglect.
7. Ms B’s relative, Ms C was receiving care in her own home. Ms B made a safeguarding referral to the Council with concerns she had about the care support after Ms C went into hospital. Ms C was presenting unwell in the days before, but the care staff took no action.
8. It took the Council almost a year to complete its safeguarding investigation. The Council accepts significant unnecessary delays; this is fault. The Council also accepts it failed to keep Ms B informed; this is fault.
9. There was no continuing risk to Ms C as she died shortly after going into hospital. But the time it took the Council to investigate caused added distress, time and trouble to Ms B.
10. The Council has now completed its investigation and shared the findings with Ms B. While the Council has not provided a report, its minutes are detailed and show the findings and outcomes. The Council was satisfied with the actions the care provider took to prevent future failures in service. It could not say the outcome for Ms C would be any different.
11. The Council has apologised to Ms B for the distress it’s delay, and lack of updates, caused her. The Council has acted to prevent future failures in its service, by speaking with relevant staff and putting procedures in place to monitor progress of safeguarding cases.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because although there was fault by the Council it has now completed the investigation, shared the findings with Ms B, and apologised for the added distress and inconvenience caused by its delay and communication failures. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has now taken in response to the complaint, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman