USEFUL TEMPLATES FOR PARENTS & CARERS RE OPG SAFEGUARDING/MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD ALLEGATION CHALLENGES
A Standard Template of complaint to the NHS CEO and Safeguarding Lead
Formal Complaint Letter – NHS
Your Name
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
To:
The Chief Executive / Director of Adult Safeguarding
[Insert NHS Trust Name]
[Insert Trust Address]
Subject: Formal Complaint – Use of OPG130 Safeguarding Referrals by Trust Staff
Dear [Director’s Name / Sir or Madam],
I am writing to raise a formal complaint concerning the conduct of staff within [Insert NHS Trust Name] in their use of OPG130 safeguarding referral forms to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
This letter seeks to address serious concerns about the procedural fairness, accuracy, and professionalism of the referral process, particularly when OPG130 forms are completed about family members acting as attorneys under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for individuals who are subject to deprivation of liberty authorisations (DoLS).
On [insert approximate date], I learned that employees of [Insert NHS Trust Name] had submitted an OPG130 safeguarding referral concerning my role as [attorney/deputy/other] for [insert relative’s name or “my relative”].
The referral was made without my knowledge, input, or opportunity to respond. Only later did I discover that the form described me using highly prejudicial terms such as “perpetrator” or “alleged abuser”, before any investigation or fact-finding had taken place.
Such terminology and process are deeply damaging to those involved, particularly when the allegations are unsubstantiated or based on misunderstanding rather than evidence.
I received no notification that a safeguarding referral was being made and no opportunity to address or clarify any concerns before the OPG130 was submitted.This lack of transparency conflicts with the NHS Duty of Candour, principles of natural justice, and good safeguarding practice, all of which require openness and proportionality in decision-making.
The OPG130 form’s use of the labels “perpetrator” and “abuser” to describe the subject of the referral is inherently prejudicial. It implies guilt before inquiry and undermines the presumption of innocence.
When Trust employees complete such forms, they should ensure that language is factual, neutral, and evidence-based to avoid unfair bias or reputational harm.
Staff acting on behalf of the Trust have a duty to ensure that all information submitted to external bodies is accurate, proportionate, and supported by evidence.
Submitting allegations that are inaccurate or misleading — particularly where they damage a person’s reputation, can expose both the individual staff member and the Trust itself to serious professional and legal consequences.I would therefore ask the Trust to remind its employees that the completion of OPG130 referrals is not a procedural formality but a formal communication that carries legal and professional accountability for its content.
Referrals of this nature should be made only where there is to a person’s welfare. The casual or routine use of the OPG130 process undermines trust between families and professionals, causes emotional harm, and risks diverting safeguarding resources from genuine cases of abuse or neglect.
In Re: DJN (2019) EWCOP 51, the Court of Protection strongly criticised the OPG’s investigatory approach as “procedurally flawed, disproportionate, and unfair.”The issues identified in that case mirror those now occurring within health and social care safeguarding practice, namely, the making of serious allegations without due evidence, balance, or procedural fairness.
The Trust has a duty under the NHS Constitution, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Care and Support Statutory Guidance (2014) to ensure that safeguarding referrals are made fairly, transparently, and on the basis of clear factual evidence.
I respectfully request that [Insert NHS Trust Name]:
Conduct an internal review of the OPG130 referral made concerning me, including who authorised it, what evidence it was based upon, and why I was not consulted;
Provide a written response clarifying whether Trust policy permits the use of terms such as “perpetrator” or “abuser” in referral documentation;
Review and update staff training on safeguarding referrals to ensure that all OPG130 submissions are:
Supported by clear factual evidence;
Written in neutral, objective language;
Made in accordance with the principles of fairness and proportionality;
Remind all staff that they and the Trust are professionally and legally accountable for the accuracy of the information they provide to external bodies, and that inaccurate or unsupported allegations can give rise to reputational and potential legal consequences for the Trust.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 15 working days, I intend to refer this matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for independent review of the Trust’s safeguarding practices.
I fully support the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and recognise the importance of vigilance in protecting those at risk. However, safeguarding duties must be exercised with care, evidence, and fairness.
The use of OPG130 forms without due process, and with language that presumes wrongdoing, undermines confidence in the system and inflicts serious and unnecessary harm on those acting in good faith as attorneys for their relatives.
I therefore ask the Trust to take this complaint seriously, to review its current practice, and to ensure that its safeguarding policies and staff conduct reflect both the legal standards of fairness and the ethical principles of the NHS.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your acknowledgment and response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
FORMAL LETTER TO COUNCIL
Formal Complaint Letter
Your Name
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
To:
The Director of Adult Social Care
[Insert Local Authority Name]
[Insert Address of Council or Safeguarding Department]
Subject: Formal Complaint – Unfair and Prejudicial Use of OPG130 Safeguarding Referral Process
Dear [Director’s Name / Sir or Madam],
I wish to raise a formal complaint concerning the manner in which [Insert Local Authority Name] has used the OPG130 safeguarding referral process in relation to my role as [attorney/deputy/other] for [insert relative’s name or “my relative”], who is currently subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation (DoLS).
This complaint concerns both procedural unfairness and the use of prejudicial language in the OPG130 form submitted to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which described me as a “perpetrator” or “alleged abuser”before any investigation or opportunity for response.
On [insert approximate date], I learned that the local authority had submitted an OPG130 safeguarding referral to the OPG concerning my conduct as attorney.
I had no prior notice or opportunity to respond before this referral was made, nor was I consulted or informed of the specific concerns being raised. The process was conducted entirely without transparency, and I only became aware of the referral after the fact.
Such an approach appears contrary to both statutory safeguarding guidance and the principles of fairness and proportionality that should underpin all decisions involving family members acting under a valid Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
a) Lack of Procedural Fairness
The decision to submit an OPG130 referral without informing or consulting me deprived me of the right to respond, clarify, or correct any misunderstandings.
Such secrecy is inconsistent with both the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (2014) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which require that safeguarding actions be proportionate, transparent, and partnership-based.
b) Prejudicial and Pejorative Language
The OPG130 form refers to the subject of the referral as the “perpetrator” or “alleged abuser.”
The use of this terminology is deeply prejudicial, as it presumes wrongdoing before any inquiry has taken place. It also risks tainting subsequent investigations by the OPG through implicit bias.
This language is wholly inappropriate when the referral concerns family members acting lawfully under an LPA, often in complex and emotionally charged circumstances. Such terminology conflicts with principles of natural justice and fairness in public decision-making.
c) Perfunctory and Bureaucratic Safeguarding Practice
It appears that the OPG130 referral was made as a routine administrative action, rather than as a result of a balanced and evidence-based assessment of risk.
This perfunctory approach risks unnecessary escalation, reputational harm, and emotional distress — particularly when there is no clear evidence of abuse or immediate risk of harm.
d) Failure to Uphold Transparency and Partnership
The Care Act 2014 and accompanying guidance emphasise that safeguarding should be person-centred, involving cooperation and partnership with those concerned wherever possible.
Making a secret referral to the OPG, without notifying or engaging the person affected, directly undermines these values and erodes trust between families and statutory bodies.
3. Relevant Context and Judicial Guidance
These concerns are not isolated. In Re: DJN (2019) EWCOP 51, the Court of Protection (District Judge Marin) was highly critical of the OPG’s handling of safeguarding matters, describing its approach as “procedurally flawed, disproportionate, and unfair.”
The same risks arise when local authorities use the OPG130 process without proper scrutiny, dialogue, or evidence. The court in DJN warned that such conduct can undermine public confidence in the safeguarding system and cause unjust harm to family members acting in good faith.
The pattern identified by the court appears to persist — and the conduct of [Insert Local Authority Name] in my case exemplifies these very failings.
4. Remedies Requested
I respectfully request that the local authority:
- Undertake an internal review of the decision to submit the OPG130 referral, including who authorised it, what evidence it relied upon, and why I was not consulted;
- Confirm whether the terminology “perpetrator” or “abuser” was used in the form submitted, and if so, acknowledge that this language was inappropriate and prejudicial;
- Provide a written explanation and apology for the lack of consultation and transparency;
- Amend local safeguarding procedures to ensure:
- Family attorneys are notified and invited to respond before any OPG130 referral is made (except in cases of immediate risk);
- Neutral and non-prejudicial terminology is used in all safeguarding referrals; and
- Decisions to refer are supported by clear, documented evidence and proportionality assessments.
5. Next Steps
If I do not receive a satisfactory response or explanation within 20 working days, I will refer this matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, requesting an independent investigation into the council’s safeguarding practices and their compliance with principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality.
6. Conclusion
I fully recognise the vital importance of safeguarding vulnerable adults. However, that duty must be exercised with integrity, balance, and fairness. The current practice of making secret OPG130 referrals against family attorneys — using prejudicial labels such as “perpetrator” or “abuser” — is fundamentally incompatible with those values.
I therefore ask the council to take this complaint seriously, to review its current procedures, and to ensure that all future safeguarding actions are conducted in a manner that respects both due process and the rights of family carers acting under LPAs.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your acknowledgment and response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
FORMAL LETTER – PHSO
Formal Complaint Letter
Your Name
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
To:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
Subject: Complaint Regarding the Office of the Public Guardian’s Refusal to Engage or Negotiate in Relation to OPG130 Investigations
Dear Sir or Madam,
I wish to raise a formal complaint regarding the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and its conduct in handling an OPG130 safeguarding referral concerning me.
The OPG’s current approach — specifically, its policy of refusing to engage or negotiate with individuals who have been reported — has, in my case, resulted in unnecessary distress, procedural unfairness, and avoidable escalation. This conduct conflicts with the fundamental principles of fairness, proportionality, and cooperation that underpin the Civil Procedure Rules’ (CPR) Overriding Objective and with standards of administrative justice expected of a public body.
1. Background
On [insert approximate date], I was informed that the OPG had received an OPG130 safeguarding referral concerning my role as [attorney/deputy/other].
Throughout the process, I made multiple attempts to engage with the OPG to clarify the issues raised and to resolve any misunderstandings through correspondence or informal dialogue. However, the OPG consistently declined to communicate substantively, stating that it was “not their policy to discuss matters with those under investigation.”
This categorical refusal to engage deprived me of any fair opportunity to respond meaningfully or correct misconceptions before the OPG made decisions with significant personal and legal consequences.
(Case Reference: [Insert OPG Reference Number])
2. The Legal and Procedural Framework
While I recognise that the OPG’s powers derive from the Mental Capacity Act 2005, it nevertheless operates within the broader framework of public law and the administration of justice. Its decisions often have direct consequences for rights and obligations that ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection, where the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) — and their underlying principles — apply.
Under CPR 1.1, the Overriding Objective requires that cases be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost, which includes:
- Ensuring parties are on an equal footing;
- Saving expense;
- Dealing with matters fairly and expeditiously;
- Promoting cooperation between parties; and
- Encouraging resolution without unnecessary litigation.
Further, CPR 1.4(2)(e) places a duty upon those managing or preparing cases to encourage cooperation and the use of alternative means of resolution before resorting to formal proceedings.
3. How the OPG’s Conduct Conflicts with These Principles
a) Failure to Cooperate or Engage
The OPG’s policy of non-engagement prevents early clarification of issues and denies individuals a fair opportunity to respond. This approach is antithetical to the cooperative and transparent ethos that underpins the CPR and good administrative practice.
b) Disproportionate and Heavy-Handed Escalation
Many safeguarding concerns could be addressed through simple dialogue or exchange of information. Instead, the OPG’s rigid policy often leads to unnecessary escalation to the Court of Protection — a process that is costly, adversarial, and traumatic. This disproportionate response conflicts with the principles of proportionality and efficient use of public resources.
c) Inequality of Arms
The OPG, as a powerful public authority, holds significant institutional and procedural advantages. Its refusal to engage leaves individuals facing complex investigations without any opportunity to clarify or contest matters on an equal footing, contrary to natural justice and the procedural fairness expected of public bodies.
d) Waste of Public and Judicial Resources
By declining informal resolution, the OPG effectively increases the burden on the Court of Protection and the public purse. This runs counter to the CPR’s objective of avoiding unnecessary litigation and conserving judicial time.
4. Judicial Criticism of the OPG. Re: DJN (2019) EWCOP 51
The concerns I raise are not isolated. In Re: DJN (2019) EWCOP 51, District Judge Marin issued strong judicial criticism of the OPG’s conduct. The Court found that the OPG’s handling of an investigation had been:
- Procedurally flawed, failing to evaluate evidence properly before escalating to the Court of Protection;
- Heavy-handed and disproportionate, resulting in unnecessary distress and expense;
- Unfair, in that the OPG had not acted in a way consistent with the principles of procedural justice; and
- Damaging to public confidence, as the OPG’s actions risked undermining trust in its safeguarding role.
The Court in Re: DJN explicitly urged the OPG to reflect upon and reform its investigatory processes, recognising that its conduct had strayed from the standards of fairness and proportionality expected in the administration of justice.
My own experience mirrors the very failings criticised in that case, suggesting that the OPG has failed to implement meaningful reforms or heed judicial warnings.
5. Remedy Sought
I respectfully request that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman:
- Investigate the OPG’s refusal to engage or negotiate with individuals under investigation following an OPG130 report;
- Determine whether the OPG’s conduct in my case reflects maladministration or procedural unfairness, particularly in light of judicial criticism in Re: DJN (2019); and
- Recommend procedural reforms, ensuring the OPG adopts a proportionate, transparent, and cooperative approach consistent with the spirit of the CPR and principles of natural justice.
6. Supporting Evidence
I am prepared to provide copies of all relevant correspondence, records of communication attempts, and any documentation showing the OPG’s refusal to engage once this complaint is under review.
Conclusion
The OPG’s refusal to engage or negotiate with those reported under an OPG130 is not only inconsistent with procedural fairness but also directly contrary to the principles that underpin the wider justice system.
As Re: DJN (2019) demonstrates, such conduct has been judicially criticised for being unfair, disproportionate, and harmful to public trust. My experience shows that these systemic problems persist, and I therefore seek the Ombudsman’s assistance to ensure accountability and reform.
Thank you for your consideration of this complaint. I look forward to your acknowledgment and to providing any additional information required.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
FORMAL COMPLAINT LETTER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT/SOCIAL CARE OMBUDSMAN
Formal Complaint Letter
Your Name
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
To:
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry CV4 0EH
Subject: Complaint Regarding Local Authority Use of OPG130 Safeguarding Referrals – Procedural Unfairness and Prejudicial Labelling of Family Attorneys
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint concerning the conduct of [Insert Local Authority Name] Adult Social Care Department in its use of OPG130 safeguarding referral forms submitted to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
My concern relates to the perfunctory, secretive, and prejudicial manner in which such referrals are being completed and submitted, often without informing, engaging with, or offering any right of reply to the family members concerned. This practice is particularly troubling in cases where those reported are family attorneys holding a valid Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for relatives who are simultaneously subject to deprivation of liberty authorisations (DoLS).
On [insert approximate date], I became aware that [Insert Local Authority Name] had submitted an OPG130 safeguarding referral concerning my role as attorney for [insert relative’s name or “my relative”], who resides under a deprivation of liberty authorisation.
This referral was made without any prior notification, dialogue, or opportunity for me to respond to concerns. Only later did I discover the existence of the OPG130 form and the extremely pejorative and prejudicial terminology it employed, describing the attorney under investigation as the “perpetrator” or “alleged abuser.”
At no point was I informed of the specific allegations, given an opportunity to clarify facts, or invited to contribute to any internal safeguarding discussion before the form was sent to the OPG.
I believe that the local authority’s use of the OPG130 form, in this way, constitutes:
A breach of procedural fairness, by submitting serious safeguarding allegations to a national regulator without notifying or engaging the individual concerned;
A misuse of language and process, through the prejudicial use of terms such as “perpetrator” and “abuser” before any investigation or determination; and
A failure of proportionality and transparency, inconsistent with principles of good administrative practice and safeguarding policy.
This process appears to have evolved into a routine bureaucratic measure rather than a carefully considered safeguarding step. The absence of meaningful scrutiny, dialogue, or evidence before submission risks serious and lasting reputational harm to family members acting in good faith as attorneys.
The OPG130 form itself contains the pre-printed labels “perpetrator” and “abuser” to describe the subject of the referral. When local authorities complete and submit such forms, they effectively brand family attorneys as abusersbefore any investigation or verification has taken place.
This is inconsistent with:
Principles of natural justice, which require that allegations be fairly tested before conclusions or labels are applied;
The Mental Capacity Act 2005’s protective ethos, which balances safeguarding with respect for family relationships and individual autonomy; and
The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (2014), which emphasises proportionality, partnership, and transparency in safeguarding actions.
This language is profoundly pejorative and prejudicial, especially when the referral is based on misunderstandings, family disputes, or differing interpretations of best interests. It also risks contaminating subsequent investigations by the OPG or Court of Protection through implicit bias introduced at the outset.
Local authorities are making OPG130 referrals in complete secrecy, without notifying the person being reported or providing an opportunity to comment. This practice denies affected individuals the basic right to natural justice and procedural fairness; prevents early resolution or clarification of issues; and causes unnecessary escalation to formal investigations that may later be found groundless.
Such secrecy conflicts with both the Local Government Transparency Code and the principles of open decision-making expected of public authorities exercising statutory safeguarding duties.
The issues raised here reflect similar concerns to those identified by the Court of Protection in Re: DJN (2019) EWCOP 51, where District Judge Marin sharply criticised the OPG’s investigatory approach as procedurally flawed, disproportionate, and unfair.
That case underscores a pattern: where safeguarding processes involving LPAs are conducted without proper scrutiny, proportionality, or respect for family attorneys’ rights, they can cause significant and unjust harm.
Local authorities, by submitting OPG130 referrals in the perfunctory manner described, contribute directly to the same systemic failings highlighted in DJN.
I respectfully request that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman:
Investigate the conduct of [Insert Local Authority Name] in its handling and submission of OPG130 safeguarding referrals;
Examine the procedural fairness and transparency of this practice, especially where LPAs and deprivation of liberty are involved;
Review the prejudicial language of the OPG130 form and the implications of using “perpetrator” and “abuser” labels before any factual determination; and
Recommend guidance or reform requiring local authorities to:
Notify and consult individuals prior to submitting OPG130 referrals, except where immediate risk of harm exists;
Adopt neutral, non-prejudicial terminology; and
Ensure proportionality, transparency, and accountability in safeguarding referrals.
I am willing to provide copies of correspondence, the relevant OPG130 form (if obtainable), and records showing the lack of engagement or consultation prior to referral.
The secretive and prejudicial use of OPG130 safeguarding forms by local authorities represents a serious procedural failing. It undermines fairness, erodes trust between families and statutory bodies, and risks deterring well-intentioned relatives from acting as attorneys for loved ones.
The automatic use of terms such as “perpetrator” and “abuser” not only prejudges the individual but also offends against the presumption of innocence and the principles of good safeguarding practice.
I therefore ask the Ombudsman to investigate this issue urgently and to recommend reforms ensuring that local authorities act fairly, transparently, and proportionately in all future safeguarding referrals to the OPG.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your acknowledgment and to providing any additional information required.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
Psychiatric Abuse UK 