Summary: Ms D raises complaints on behalf of stakeholders of a Nursing Home. We should not investigate the complaints because they have already been independently investigated and some issues can only be resolved by the Courts.

The complaint

1. Ms D and the other stakeholders of a Nursing Home complain about the actions of staff from Staffordshire County Council (the Council), Midlands Partnerships NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Integrated Care Board (ICB). They complain the organisations have bullied and harassed staff, conspired to shut down the Nursing Home and caused reputational damage to everyone associated with the Nursing Home.
2. Specifically, they complain:
• the Council failed to adequately investigate the matters she raised, consider the evidence she provided or pointed to and did provide a response to all the issues she complained about. She also complains the ICB refused to respond to her separate complaint to it.  
• A Trust Officer breached confidentiality twice; they sent a copy of a Notice of Proposal to Remove Care Home Registration and also told the Clinical Lead at the Nursing Home a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection was planned. Ms D provided proof of the breaches to the Trust, but it has done nothing except replace the officer. The stakeholders do not think this is enough.
• After a CQC inspection, Council officers worked in the Nursing Home and made comments which suggested they supported the removed officer and showed bias
• Nursing Home staff made audio recordings of the Council officers who were working on site to support their complaint. The recordings include derogatory comments about Miss D’s personal life. Other recordings show the officers were determined to close the Nursing Home down with no care or respect for the residents. The Council has said it cannot identify the staff in the recordings, despite the Nursing Home giving evidence of who signed in and out on a daily basis.
• Council staff deliberately miscommunicated and reviewed the wrong records which suggested there was no improvement when the Nursing Home provided clear evidence of ongoing work to improve.
• Despite the difficulties, the owners found a new investor who was willing to help the Nursing Home improve. The Council contacted the new buyer and put them under pressure to take over, which is not its role.
3. Ms D says the actions of the Council, and its officers, has severely damaged the financial viability of the Nursing Home and it is now on the verge of insolvency. Ms D said the organisations have also reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council and she has been forced to defend her registration after false and vindictive charges have been brought against her. She has also had her professional reputation damaged by the events. The lack of a co-ordinated response, and the failure to provide proper explanations to all parts of her complaint have caused her unnecessary time and trouble and distress in pursuing her complaint for longer than she should have to.
4. Ms D wants an independent investigation, explanations why her company was targeted the way it was after years of previous successful work alongside the Council, an apology and retraction for the damage caused to her personally and professionally, as well as financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015 a single team has considered these complaints acting for both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
6. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe:
• it is unlikely they would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify their involvement, or
• it is unlikely they could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• they cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. If the Ombudsmen are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, they can complete their investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all of the information provided to us by Ms D, including her complaints to the Council and the ICB, as well as her supplementary information about the role of the Care Quality Commission.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
10. Ms D commented on my draft decision, and I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. Ms D raised complaints with the Council and the ICB about the way her company has been treated while trying to improve a failing Nursing Home.
12. Ms D’s complaint was investigated by an independent investigator who issued a final decision on 9 November 2022. The investigation found there was insufficient evidence to uphold Ms D’s complaint. This was in part due to it being based on individual recollections of events which could not be verified in other ways.
13. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different conclusion from reviewing the same evidence which has already been independently investigated.
14. For several of Ms D’s complaints, the injustice claimed could not be rectified by the Ombudsmen. We are not the correct organisation to consider claims for reputational and personal damages or defamation of character.
15. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 4(1b))
16. Ms D has told the Ombudsmen she considers the cost of a legal claim prohibitive, but this can be factored into a successful claim and is not enough reason for us to investigate issues which we are not correctly placed to consider.
17. It is unlikely an Ombudsmen investigation would reach a different conclusion from reviewing the same evidence which has already been independently investigated and we are not the correct organisation to consider a claim for damages. Therefore, the Ombudsmen should not investigate Ms D’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsmen should not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to reach a different outcome. The Courts are the most appropriate organisation to achieve the outcomes Ms D seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman