Council conducted “inadequate” and “biased” safeguarding investigation, Ombudsman finds

Following the LGSCO's investigation, Cornwall Council agreed to ‘erase’ from its records any finding that the man, Mr X, was a perpetrator of financial abuse.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said Mr X complained about Cornwall’s investigation of allegations that he financially abused his mother, Mrs C.

Mr X said the council’s investigation was not fair or balanced, and placed “unreasonable restrictions” on his contacts with Mrs C.

Analysing the man’s complaint, the Ombudsman found no fault in the council’s decision to begin adult safeguarding enquiries under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014.

The report observed: “When the council receives allegations which suggest a vulnerable adult has been, or may be at risk of, abuse then it must take those seriously. Here, it received serious allegations about Mr X’s conduct and could not dismiss those. Properly therefore it decided to investigate.”

The investigation however found “several faults” with the investigation itself.

The Ombudsman stated:

• First, there was significant delay between the council receiving a report alleging potential abuse by Mr X and it speaking to him about those allegations.
• Second, when the council put allegations to Mr X it did so only partially. "At the beginning it received a report Mr X bought friends to Mr and Mrs C’s home and effectively let them take advantage. But it never tested that allegation with Mr X. Nor did the council talk to Mr X about the suggestion he had taken money from a safe."
• Third, the council did not adequately investigate those allegations it did put to Mr X. "In particular the suggestion Mr X took money from Mrs C’s account inappropriately. Properly the council referred this matter to the police. But it never followed up enquiries with the local police force."
• Fourth, the Ombudsman considered the council acted with bias in its investigation. "When the council first discussed advocacy with Mrs C it did so with all family members present, except Mr X. This, despite knowing of the close interest he took in her welfare. However, I did not consider I could find fault in this. At the time the Council had not received counter-allegations from Mr X, expressing concern for the influence of those around Mrs C. It would also be bad practice to discuss the safeguarding process with the alleged victim, with the alleged perpetrator present." Nor could the Ombudsman fault the capacity assessments. However, "a clear bias did emerge when I considered the allegations Mr X made about other members of the family..... my criticism here was not the council overlooked clear compelling evidence of abuse by anyone else, but that it took an unbalanced approach to the investigation. I sympathised with the social worker having to navigate the awkward family dynamic. But that could not be an excuse for systematically ignoring Mr X’s concerns, while following up on those raised by other family members." There had also been "a glaring inconsistency to the social worker’s approach to the allegations about Mr X compared to his counter-allegations."
• Fifth, there was fault in the council’s record keeping. The Ombudsman was concerned that three statements made at a meeting in June 2023 by its social worker were not supported by its records.
• Sixth, the Ombudsman considered the meeting in June 2023 provided further evidence of fault. "The council presented the meeting as being about Mrs C’s wellbeing. But the social worker’s motivation for supporting limits to Mr X’s visits to the family home was for the impact on Mr C. I could not criticise this as a motive, given Mr C’s age and potential vulnerability. But it again brought into focus the inadequacy of the investigation that preceded the meeting. Put simply, where was the evidence that Mr X’s visits to Mr C caused the anxiety claimed."
• Seventh, the council failed to provide clear information following the meeting in June 2023.
• Eighth, when the council completed its investigation, it left documentation which in two places identified Mr X as a perpetrator of financial abuse. "This contradicted its assertion elsewhere the allegation was 'unsubstantiated'. However, I did not consider the references a ‘slip of the pen’. I considered they represented the true view of the Council that it believed Mr X had perpetrated financial abuse." The Ombudsman noted that the council worked to the civil standard of proof or the balance of probabilities. "It had to ask was it more or less likely that abuse had occurred? So, it did not need evidence to a criminal standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. But even allowing for this I could not find any basis for it reaching such a conclusion. There was nothing on the council records showing Mr X took money from Mrs C’s bank account or elsewhere inappropriately. Nor that he used her car inappropriately. Nor that he let friends take advantage of her and Mr C."
• Ninth, the council missed opportunities to consider its own practice in this case when contacted by Mr X’s local authority and following his complaint.

The Ombudsman said: “In summary then, I found multiple failings by the council in its safeguarding investigation including delay, inadequate investigation, inadequate communication with Mr X, clear bias and unfairness. Most of these resulted in avoidable and unnecessary distress to Mr X, above that inherent in any safeguarding investigation when someone is accused of abuse.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £1,000 for his distress;
• appoint a senior officer, not previously familiar with the case, to review the council’s contacts with Mr X since January 2024;
• ‘erase’ from its records any finding that Mr X was a perpetrator of financial abuse. And to attach to its safeguarding records a statement directing anyone who views the record that the Ombudsman’s investigation has taken place and found multiple failings;
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £438 as a contribution to the accommodation costs he incurred in December 2023.

The Ombudsman noted: “The council then told us its record system did not permit erasure. But that it could add a clear record to the ‘front screen’ of its records, making clear any finding Mr X had perpetrated financial abuse was incorrect and directing any viewer of those records to this investigation.

“I considered this a satisfactory outcome, subject to the council making a further check to ensure no form of ‘erasure’ was possible; for example, through redacting, overtyping, or recording a clear statement next to the offending entries.”

The Ombudsman also called on the council to revise its safeguarding policy to include sections advising on:

• desired timescales for completing enquiries when it has decided to undertake those which can cross-reference the Practice Quality Standards;
• what action social workers should take to inform both those reporting alleged abuse and any alleged perpetrators when it closes an investigation.

It also asked Cornwall to provide a briefing to all those who conduct adult safeguarding investigations to put across the key learning points from this investigation. The report said these were considered to be:

• that investigating social workers must consider the factual basis for allegations;
• that social workers should take seriously counter-allegations and decide whether to investigate those also;
• that there should be clear audit trails of all communications relevant to findings on a safeguarding investigation;
• that findings which record abuse substantiated, must provide a clear rationale for such a finding.

Cornwall Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson