The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The risk was immediately removed, and the Council refunded care fees which acknowledges Mrs C’s distress.
The complaint
Ms B says the Council failed to believe her mother (Mrs C) regarding abuse by a care worker, so the outcome of its safeguarding investigation was inconclusive and unsubstantiated. The Council did not follow Mrs C’s wishes not to be contacted without her daughter present. Ms B says the Council was persistent in wanting to speak with Mrs C about the incident, which made Mrs C feel harassed and added to her upset and anxiety when she already felt vulnerable.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs C disclosed that a care worker providing domiciliary care in her home had treated her roughly and caused bruising.
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) The Council completed a safeguarding investigation but could not conclude neglect or abuse because the incident was not witnessed. Mrs C therefore feels the Council has not believed her version of events. It is unlikely that further investigation would conclude a different outcome. It is not a case of not believing Mrs C, but there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.
The Council took action to protect Mrs C from potential abuse by not scheduling this care worker to attend to her care any longer. Mrs C worries about the potential for the care worker to abuse others. The Care Provider spoke with other service users and no concerns were raised about the care worker to indicate any systemic problem. The Care Provider also completed an unannounced visit on a care call provided by the care worker. Mrs C wants the care worker to no longer work with vulnerable adults, but that is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve.
Mrs C would like the Council to ‘compensate’ her for alleged failures in the safeguarding process which added to the anxiety she was already feeling following the bruising she sustained. The Council has already refunded over £700 for the care calls provided by the care worker alleged to have caused abuse, despite not concluding that was the case. This is a significant acknowledgement of Mrs C’s upset and anxiety. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve more.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman