‘Unnecessary distress’: Town Hall apologises to family left in dark about safeguarding concerns for late relative
A grieving relative only learned that her late aunt was the subject of safeguarding concerns after requesting documents from the London Ambulance Service.
Islington Council, which had arranged care for the woman, known as Mrs O, failed to tell her family about the concerns.
Her relative, Mrs X, complained to the council about the lack of records and care.
She took her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, which said Islington “caused unnecessary and avoidable distress at a time of significant trauma and upset” in the way it handled an investigation into safeguarding and Mrs O’s death.
The complaint includes the council’s failure to inform Mrs O’s family about the safeguarding investigation and its refusal to meet with Mrs X.
Mrs X only learnt about the safeguarding concerns when she got documents back as part of a subject access request from the ambulance service.
She complained that this was the first time the family found out about these concerns.
Mrs O was taken into hospital in January after she was found unconscious at home, face down in a pool of her own vomit. She died the next day.
She had three daily visits by a care agency. Earlier in the day a carer thought she was asleep so did not wake her.
Islington Council decided it would not carry out a safeguarding inquiry – intended to look at whether steps should be taken to ensure the safety of a vulnerable person – because it looked into the concerns flagged by ambulance staff.
Mrs X said because of her concerns about what happened to her aunt there “has been no time to grieve, and there are more questions than answers”.
When she asked the council to review the case and meet her, staff declined and said they did not think they had missed anything or failed to review what happened thoroughly.
Mrs X explained to the ombudsman that the family still does not know what happened to Mrs X, and that the uncertainty and their grief have “had a significant impact” on her mental health.
The ombudsman said the council could have used its discretion to look at a complaint review as Mrs X wanted to meet and give staff information she felt was relevant.
“I find this was a missed opportunity for the council to have considered the information Mrs X wanted it to have as part of its investigation into what happened to Mrs O,” the ombudsman said.
It added: “Mrs X was grieving. I find the council could have been more understanding, and not required her to jump through certain hoops in such a rigid fashion.”
It also ruled that “the fault caused Mrs X injustice, in that it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress at a time of significant trauma and upset”.
The council has to pay £400 in compensation and is reminding staff that they must inform next of kin about safeguarding decisions, even if they did not make the referrals.
An Islington Council spokesman said: “We’re working to build a more equal Islington where people can live independent and healthy lives.
“We’ve apologised for the distress caused in this case, and are reviewing our safeguarding policy so this does not happen again.
“We completely accept the ombudsman’s findings, and will learn from this.”