Date of decision: 15 Sep 2025
Summary
This report addresses a complaint about the conduct of the Council’s safeguarding investigation into allegations of financial abuse of an elderly woman by her son. The investigation was found to be inadequate and biased, resulting in serious distress for both the accused and his mother, as restrictive measures were imposed on their contact.
What happened
In January 2023, the Council received a safeguarding alert alleging that an individual was financially abusing his elderly mother, Mrs C, along with concerns about inappropriate use of her property and access to her home.
Mrs C, elderly and living with care needs, had recently suffered a stroke and was supported by her husband and adult children, one of whom lived over 250 miles away. Ms G, described as an honorary daughter, also had longstanding ties to Mrs C.
Mrs C was independent in many aspects of her life, including driving her own car, undertaking some of her own shopping and banking before having had a stroke. Mr X tended to support her with online shopping and some financial tasks that required work online, such as researching and buying insurance.
Upon launching the safeguarding enquiry under the Care Act 2014, the Council notified the police of the report. The investigation involved multiple capacity assessments for Mrs C in April to determine her understanding and ability to manage finances and respond to safeguarding concerns, where she was found to lack capacity. The Council offered advocacy for her best interests.
Allegations were presented to the accused son in late April, though not all claims, such as bringing friends to the home or accessing a safe, were discussed. The son denied wrongdoing and reported distress caused by the allegations, asserting his assistance was limited to legitimate support.
Concerns raised by Ms G and other parties over the following months included blocked access to Mrs C, restrictions on contact, and debate about who should manage her finances. In June 2023, the Council convened a meeting, proposing another family member become Deputy for financial management and setting a “safety plan” limiting the son’s visits and overnight stays. Mrs C expressed a wish not to see such restrictions.
Throughout the process, the son raised further complaints and concerns, including lack of care for Mrs C, exclusion of friends from visiting, and confusion about the investigation progress. The version of the ‘safety’ plan sent to him omitted key review clauses.
In late 2023, the local authority of the son intervened, raising concerns for his health and the conduct of the investigation. The police investigation into the original allegations remained unresolved, but the Council continued to restrict the son’s overnight stays at the family home. At Christmas 2023, he incurred accommodation expenses.
Mrs C’s health declined; she moved to residential care in January 2024.
Complaints by the son regarding investigation bias, unclear restrictions, and ongoing distress led to an Ombudsman review. Meanwhile, the Council implemented new forms and oversight processes in adult safeguarding.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault to open a safeguarding enquiry given the allegations, but committed multiple faults and omissions thereafter, including excessive delays, failure to present allegations in full, and inadequate investigation, especially concerning counter-allegations and critical facts. Moreover, the Council’s approach was biased, giving insufficient attention to the son’s concerns and mishandling record-keeping and communication.
The investigator listed 8 or so respects in which there was unfairness or inadequate safeguarding practice. There was no record the social worker ever put to Mr X the allegation that he brought friends to Mrs C’s house and let them stay. His position was that he occasionally supported Mrs C’s friends to visit her. There was also no record the Council asked Mr X if he had any access to Mrs C’s safe. His position to the investigator was that he did not know where Mrs C kept the key.
Despite finding the allegations unproven for want of evidence, the Council somehow completed a separate “safeguarding enquiry closure” form. In this the Council said the allegation of financial or material abuse was “fully substantiated”. The social worker also completed a third document in June 2023 (a safeguarding risk assessment) in which they wrote “there is clear evidence of a loving bond between [Mrs C] and [Mr X] who was the perpetrator of financial abuse”.
In concluding the investigation, the Council reported Mr X was also alleged to have caused psychological abuse through “attitude, threats and behaviours”. Yet there were no details of such allegations in the case papers.
The ensuing restrictions imposed on the son’s contact were found to be disproportionate and rooted in a flawed process. Documentation erroneously identified him as ‘a perpetrator’. The investigation failed statutory and administrative standards for timeliness, fairness, and accuracy, causing avoidable distress and expense.
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, Having referred the matter to the police, quite properly, it never followed up enquiries with the local police force. In addition, the Council never adequately explored the allegations around Mr X’s use of the car. These were considerations relevant to deciding if Mr X perpetrated financial abuse.
There was a marked difference between the way allegations made against him were investigated in comparison to how those he made about others were treated.
The Council failed to investigate Mr X’s own counter-allegations against family members:
- the selling of Mrs C’s car by other family members;
- what had happened to money in the safe;
- Mr X’s allegation that Mrs C reported feeling scared of one family member. It never spoke to her alone about this;
- Mr X’s concern about the suitability of another family member to become Mrs C’s Deputy. Only in the meeting in June 2023 did this matter receive some airing, even though Mr X had tried to raise it before;
- Mr X’s concern that family members prevented Mrs C seeing neighbours. This was dismissed although the Council already knew that family members had sought to prevent Mrs C going away with Ms G on an assumed misunderstanding the safeguarding investigation prevented this. The social worker did not test if the family sought to block Mrs C’s contact with other people also.
It took an unbalanced approach to the investigation, even allowing for 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.
When it came to Mr X’s concern family members may have taken money from Mr and Mrs C’s safe, the social worker refused to discuss saying that anything that happened here related to the time when Mrs C had capacity, despite the Council having an account which placed money in the safe at the start of the investigation – whereas by the same logic there was no reason to pursue investigation into any concerns that Mrs C had given Mr X money before she entered hospital or his use of her car, given that this was in the time before Mrs C’s stroke and presumed loss of capacity. Conversely, the Council knew that when family members other than Mr X sold Mrs C’s car, there were doubts about Mrs C’s capacity to manage her financial affairs. Yet the social worker did not ask family members about this, nor pursue questions about its worth, or what had happened to the money etc.
To remedy the injustice, the Council issued an apology, provided a symbolic payment of £1000, covered part of the accommodation expenses (£438), and committed to correcting its records and improving procedures.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
In examining the legal analysis provided by the Ombudsman’s report, key issues arise concerning the treatment of statutory duties and principles under community care law. The powers and responsibilities under the Care Act 2014 (taking the lead role on safeguarding) do not carry any positive powers of authority over the way people are living their lives; if they want to do something to stop contact, or restrict someone’s freedoms, they need to use the Court of Protection, if people will not do as requested – pending a short period for investigation. So the attempt to restrict contact was a straightforward human rights issue, and the investigator says nothing about that in terms, whilst admittedly scrutinising the proportionality of the regime being suggested.
The law – public law, and in particular, the law of due process, fairness and natural justice – requires councils to ensure that safeguarding investigations are thorough, unbiased, and inclusive of counter-allegations. The Council is not a second police force or Crown Prosecution Service just because it is engaged in safeguarding. Once the Court of Protection becomes involved, it makes the decision about the proportionality of any restrictions of not just the incapacitated person’s freedom, but those of the other person as well; the Court is able to do that through injuctions etc, tself does that by exercising a human rights decision-making jurisdiction.
Community care law clarifies that even attempting to restrict contact between family members purely on the basis of untested or unresolved allegations, without full and fair examination or an evaluation of less restrictive alternatives, can amount to a breach of the principle of minimum necessary intervention in section 1(3) of the Care Act (and not just for people lacking capacity) and certainly disregard of the wellbeing promotion function.
Public law principles of procedural fairness would require councils to document the reasons for restrictions and to clearly articulate how any curtailments on contact or care arrangements are justified and regularly reviewed in line with the individual’s wishes and best interests. The broad implication is that councils must avoid procedural shortcuts, ensure transparency of safety plans, demonstrate rational and evidence-driven decision-making, and observe formal review processes whenever ongoing restrictions are proposed, as required under both the Care Act and the Mental Capacity Act.
Local authorities must demonstrate that restrictions, advocacy input, and financial management are legally justified and have not slipped into routine or arbitrary limitation of rights. It is not sufficient to rely only on police referral or partial assessment outcomes where the individual’s capacity, risks, and preferences have not been weighed with a proper degree of scrutiny.
Of relevance to this complaint, the policy said the Council may “in some circumstances […] involve the person alleged to have caused harm” in its investigation, but it said it will not usually do this if there is a concurrent police investigation.
We think that that is wholly wrong in principle. The investigator said that there is no good reason not to make that an exceptional position only.
“Usually, basic fairness would require it to do so. I could see no valid reason for the Council not putting all allegations to Mr X, especially those not subject to any criminal enquiry.”
We think it’s standard practice for safeguarding policies, so would hope that local authority lawyers take note of this approach.
Mr X clearly did not understand the entirely voluntary nature of the ‘safety plan’. He was free to visit Mrs C and the home at any time as the safety plan carried no legal weight. But the Council did not clarify this with him. Its meeting gave him the clear message he could only visit Mrs C for one night at a time until its position was reviewed, which it did not do.
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” – and this was not a mere oversight as far as the investigator was concerned. It believed Mr X had perpetrated financial abuse and yet the investigator could nott 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 from elsewhere, inappropriately; nor that he used her car inappropriately; nor that he let friends take advantage of her and Mr C.
It was a further injustice to Mr X that these records existed which might in future be accessed by other Council personnel. On their own, they caused avoidable and unnecessary distress. But Mr X had further dealings with the Council concerning Mrs C’s care and he not unreasonably feared this flawed investigation could contaminate his later dealings with the Council, given what it recorded about him.
Despite knowing the view of another safeguarding professional that Mr X’s recording identified “practice concerns” in the conduct of the June 2023 meeting, the Council showed little curiosity, still defending it as fair.
In addition, the Council had agreed to ‘erase’ from its records any finding that Mr X was a perpetrator of financial abuse, so as to rectify the record. But the Council then said its record system did not permit erasure – so all it could do was 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 LGSCO investigation.
The Council said that since the events covered by the investigation it had updated its safeguarding enquiry form so that each allegation made that an adult may be at risk of harm, is detailed, and its social workers must provide “evidence and narrative” in response to each allegation. It put a new practice assurance framework in place, for auditing its work regularly and has put a senior officer in place with oversight of this.
The investigatator noted system improvements but went further: within three months of our initial decision in July (and within 20 working days of this reissued decision), it needed to:
Firstly – revise its current 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.
- Secondly, provide a briefing to all those who conduct adult safeguarding investigations to put across the key learning points from this investigation. I consider these are:
- 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.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Cornwall Council (24 004 347) report. If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!