Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide the urgent social care support the complainant’s mother needed. This is because it is unlikely we could add significantly to the Council’s findings or that we would recommend further action by the Council in addition to the steps it has already agreed to take to address the shortcomings it has identified.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained that the Council failed to provide the urgent social care support her mother needed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mrs B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B has told us the lack of social care support in the final stages of her mother’s illness significantly harmed the mental health of family members who were struggling to provide care alone.
7. Mrs B said she believes her case is not isolated and it provided evidence of systemic failings by the Council. To put things right Mrs B said she wanted an independent investigation of the Council’s policies, processes and practice.
8. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint in December 2021. It agreed to carry out a learning outcomes review which would include Mrs B and to implement agreed actions to improve services. It scheduled a learning outcomes review meeting. The Council accepted a family member had said they were struggling on more than one occasion. It said it did not give these discussions the level of importance it would expect so it did not take action as a priority. The Council told Mrs B it apologised profusely for this. The Council said it failed to follow up recommendations from its peer review forum meeting in May 2021. The Council told Mrs B, following her complaint, it had put in place a system to address this issue.
9. The Council concluded its communication failed to reach the level and clarity it would expect which caused unnecessary delay. It said there were not clear guidance and processes in place on the newly introduced use of micro providers. The Council said there were delays in its completion and follow up of necessary paperwork to enable the care and support plan to progress. The Council accepted it failed to follow up a nurse’s request for social care support. It also accepted its support for a social worker was not as it would expect.
10. The Council has upheld Mrs B’s complaint. It accepted there were failings in its service and it needed to take action to address them. If we investigated this complaint it is unlikely we could add significantly to the Council’s findings or that we would recommend further action by the Council in addition to the steps it has already agreed to take to address the shortcomings it had identified. So there is insufficient justification for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add significantly to the Council’s findings or that we would recommend further action by the Council in addition to the steps it has already agreed to take to address the shortcomings it had identified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman