Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about Torbay Council. A significant amount of time has passed since the events complained about which impacts on our ability to consider them now. Also, we are unlikely to be able to achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about Torbay and South Devon Foundation Trust (the Trust), who provide Torbay Council’s (the Council) adult social care function on its behalf. Specifically, Mrs X complains that:
1. The Trust delayed moving her mother, Mrs Y, back home from an initial respite placement (the Home). She was there between August 2018 and October 2019. That caused distress to them both.
2. The Trust unfairly charged Mrs Y for the care she received at the Home, which caused financial hardship.
3. The Trust caused distress to her father, Mr Y, during a safeguarding investigation.
4. The Trust wrongly deleted a digital copy of a safeguarding meeting.
2. Mrs X would like the Trust to apologise to the family, write off unpaid care charges, and to strike the 27 June 2019 safeguarding meeting minutes from Mrs X’s record. Also, she would like the Trust to add various letters to Mrs X’s record.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provide,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered information by Mrs X and the organisations involved and spoken to Mrs X on the phone. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

7. In Torbay, the Trust provide the adult social care function for the Council. But the Council remains responsible for the Trust’s actions.
8. In October 2018, the Trust decided it was in Mrs Y’s best interests to stay at the Home. Mrs X was unhappy with that and wanted to move Mrs Y back home.
9. In May 2019, Mrs Y raised physical, psychological and financial safeguarding concerns about Mrs X. As part of that safeguarding investigation, a social worker met Mrs X’s father (and Mrs Y’s husband). Mrs X was unhappy how the social worker met with her father and how it caused him significant distress.
10. In June 2019, the Trust held a safeguarding investigation meeting with Mrs X, among others. Three months later, Mrs X had concerns about the minutes of that meeting and asked the Trust not to delete the digital recording of the meeting. The Trust agreed not to.
11. During 2020 and 2021, Mrs X chased a copy of the digital recording, but due to COVID-19 could not get one.
12. In November 2021, Mrs X made a formal complaint. She met with the Head of Safeguarding who confirmed the Trust had deleted a copy of the meeting.
13. The Trust responded to Mrs X’s complaint in May 2022, and she complained to the Ombudsman in July 2022.

Analysis

Parts a) and b)

14. While Mrs Y did not have mental capacity in late 2018/2019 to raise complaints to the Trust, Mrs X was aware of the matters complained at that time.
15. Mrs X did not formally complain to the Trust about the delay getting Mrs Y home and the associated care charges until November 2021. That was three years later.
16. Mrs X told me she tried to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) in 2019 about these issues. But they advised her to complain directly to the Council. Mrs X also told me the complaints process was confusing because the Trust provided a service for the Council.
17. I accept PHSO’s advice was confusing, and it may have been unclear who Mrs X needed to complain to in 2019. However, Mrs X had the information available to make a complaint to both organisations. Either organisation would have been able to refer her to the correct one to complain directly to.
18. The Ombudsmen provide a free service but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start an investigation if the prospect of conducting an effective investigation is reduced. In this case, it has been nearly four years since the matters complained about occurred. As I will explain below, the significant amount of time passed impacts on our ability to consider the complaint now.
19. When a lengthy period of time passed, it can directly affect attempts to gather information at a much later stage. For example, people’s recollections fade and it can be much harder to get accurate accounts of an incident which occurred years before. This could impact the Trust, the Home and the Ombudsmen’s ability to consider this complaint now.
20. In summary, I consider Mrs X should have approached us sooner than she did. I can see no good reason to consider the complaints now. There would also likely be difficulties gathering information at this late stage would impact on our ability to carry out an effective investigation.

Part c)

21. Mrs X was aware of this complaint in May 2019 when she shared a copy of her father’s letter with the Trust.
22. As above, Mrs X did not formally complain to the Trust about this until November 2021. That two and a half years after the event.
23. I am not persuaded Mrs X has provided a good reasons she has taken longer than 12 months to approach the Ombudsman with this complaint.
24. Mrs X said the Trust advised her to raise her complaint with the social worker involved in the safeguarding investigation. Mrs X said she did not feel comfortable doing that. I do not consider this would justify such a long delay complaining to the Trust.

Part d)

25. I agree the Trust acted with fault when it deleted the digital recording of the safeguarding meeting. It previously agreed to keep a copy so Mrs X could comment on the accuracy. That would have been frustrating for Mrs X.
26. The Trust has accepted the fault and apologised to Mrs X and agreed to reconsider Mrs X’s comments on the accuracy of the meeting. While Mrs X cannot listen back to the meeting, the Trust has showed effort to consider her views at this late stage.
27. Mrs X would like the Trust to remove records from the safeguarding investigation which she considers are inaccurate. We cannot achieve that result for Mrs X. Mrs X should approach the Information Commissioners Office if she would like to challenge the accuracy or delete personal data held about her.
28. Overall, I consider the Trust has suitably remedied Mrs X’s injustice. Also, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the results Mrs X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

29. For the reasons explained above, I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman