Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide the complainant with safeguarding and social care support. This is because the Council has agreed to resist the issues and conduct another assessment with Ms Q which it will use to inform what action to take going forward. It is unlikely that further investigation of the issues would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs Q) complains the Council has failed to follow safeguarding procedures following it receiving a referral that she was a vulnerable person who may be at risk of harm. She also complains about unprofessional and rude contact she experienced from various officers of the Council.
2. In summary, Ms Q says the alledged fault has caused her distress and uncertainty. She also feels the Council has failed to protect her. As a desired outcome, Ms Q wants the Council to properly follow procedures and to provide her with support. She also wants the Council’s officers to be held accountable.

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 investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a safeguarding referral that Ms Q may be vulnerable with care needs and at risk of harm. This led to the Council contacting Ms Q to assess whether she met the threshold for safeguarding support as set out in the Care Act 2014. When the Council spoke to Ms Q, it recorded from her that she did not have any care and support needs. The Council provided general advice and closed the safeguarding referral on the basis Ms Q did not meet the required threshold. However, Ms Q later complained about this and stated that she did have care needs and was vulnerable and at risk.
6. There is disagreement between what was said and recorded when the Council initially contacted Ms Q to inform whether she needed support. I have not seen any evidence which substantiates either version of events. However, the Council has agreed to revisit matters with Ms Q by meeting with her to carry out an assessment of her care needs and to determine if she needs safeguarding and/or any other support. Even were we to find fault by the Council (which we have not), then in my view further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome. I am satisfied the Council is taking steps to understand whether it needs to provide support to Ms Q in accordance with legislation and statutory guidance.
7. I have not seen any evidence that Council officers who spoke with Ms Q were rude or unprofessional. There is therefore insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation in relation to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman