Council criticised for delay in completing safeguarding investigation which led to adult son being stopped from visiting father “longer than necessary”

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for its delay in completing a safeguarding investigation about a father’s care of his adult son, which led to the son’s weekend visits home being stopped “longer than necessary”.

The man behind the complaint, Mr X, complained about the council’s decision to initiate a safeguarding investigation about his care of his adult son (Mr Y), who has autism and a severe learning disability.

Mr X also complained that the council:

1. failed to communicate effectively with him and provided Mr X with no updates about Mr Y whilst the safeguarding was ongoing.
2. delayed finding alternative accommodation for Mr Y and failed to involve him when his current accommodation closed so Mr Y is now living a significant distance away.
3. has delayed finding Mr Y alternative accommodation closer to his home.

Outlining the case background, the Ombudsman said Mr Y lived at care home 1 and visited his father, Mr X, most weekends. Mr Y takes regular medication, receives two to one support in the community and one to one support in the care home.

In July 2024, the council received safeguarding concerns from care home 1. This related to Mr Y’s home visits and Mr Y having access to medication not prescribed to him, eating unhealthy food, eating food which had not been prepared in line with Mr Y’s eating guidelines and concerns about the condition of Mr X’s home. The council decided to undertake a safeguarding inquiry.

Mr Y’s social worker and their team manager arranged to visit Mr X’s home in early August. The team manager noted Mr X wanted to see Mr Y every weekend but was “choosing not to follow the given instructions” to keep Mr Y safe.

Six days after the home visit, the council held a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting with relevant staff to discuss the concerns. Mr X was not invited.

The meeting agreed to hold a further MDT meeting the following month when Mr Y’s GP could attend. It agreed if professionals met with Mr X and explained the importance of Mr Y’s eating plan, home environment and medications, it would be safe for him to continue home visits.

At the meeting, all agreed Mr Y should stay at care home 1 over the weekends until they considered the family home was safe for Mr Y.

Mr Y moved to care home 2 in late August 2024 – as care home 1 was closing down. Mr X emailed the team manager. He said he had no idea how Mr Y was settling in and had not received any daily reports about how Mr Y had spent his time at the new care home. He asked for confirmation as to when the MDT meeting would be held.

Mr X submitted a formal complaint in September 2024 that he had been “kept in the dark” and had no updates about Mr Y’s welfare and wellbeing at care home 2.

The MDT meeting was finally held in mid-October 2024. The meeting proposed Mr Y took his medication in a blister pack to Mr X’s to enable Mr X to administer it during the weekend. The meeting agreed:

• It was in Mr Y’s best interests, and that of his family, for him to visit home as before. Care home 2 agreed to transport Mr Y.
• All parties should work together to ensure a plan was in place for weekends.
• The social worker should complete a risk assessment regarding medication, eating and the environment at home.
• The social worker to visit Mr X and confirm the changes he had agreed to had taken place.
• A review of Mr Y’s eating plan by a Speech and Language Therapist.

The social worker visited Mr X the next day, where Mr X read and agreed to the risk assessment.

Care home 2 transported Mr Y home for the weekend in late October 2024.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that the council was right to investigate the safeguarding concerns, and “acted promptly” when it received them. It made Mr X aware of the concerns, carried out a home visit and held an MDT meeting to discuss the concerns. This was “appropriate” and “not fault”.

However, following the first MDT meeting the Ombudsman found no evidence that the council took any further action to address the concerns before it arranged a second meeting for mid-October 2024.

The report noted: “It is acknowledged that staff absence contributed to the delay. However, the council took too long to arrange a second MDT meeting and this was fault.”

The Ombudsman added: “When an MDT meeting was arranged, Mr X attended and agreed to the actions, including his agreement to the risk assessment. The meeting concluded Mr Y’s home visits could resume. Following the meeting it took a further week before a visit home could be arranged. The delay in arranging the MDT meeting meant Mr Y was prevented from going home for around 6 weeks longer than necessary.”

The report stated that Mr Y should have been “at the centre of the safeguarding process” and that the council failed to give “due regard” to Mr X and Mr Y’s rights to a family life – which was fault.

The Ombudsman lastly criticised the council for its poor communication with Mr X, when it failed to ensure care home 2 kept Mr X updated on Mr Y’s progress.

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

• apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and missed home visits
• pay Mr Y £300 to acknowledge the impact of the missed home visits on him
• remind officers involved in safeguarding of the importance of keeping those subject to a safeguarding investigation updated with its progress and of responding to reasonable communication without delay
• discuss the complaint with staff involved in Adult Social Care safeguarding to remind them of the importance of keeping the adult who is the subject of the safeguarding enquiry at the centre of the enquiry.

According to the Ombudsman, the council has agreed to the recommendations.

Councillor Andrea Goddard, cabinet member for adult social care at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council said: “We respect the decision of the Ombudsman and have fully complied with the required actions. Keeping our vulnerable residents safe is of the utmost importance to us, and while our officers placed the safety and wellbeing of  Mr Y at the forefront of all decisions regarding his care, we acknowledge the delay in some of our communications and the distress this caused. We have apologised and spoken with our officers to remind them of the importance of timely communication and keeping family informed.”

Lottie Winson