Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils poor communication with Mrs A’s about her late father’s, Mr C’s, care. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding even if we investigated. We are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complained about poor communication she received from the Council regarding her late father’s, Mr C’s, care when he was discharged from hospital back to his home. Mrs A says she was Mr C’s only support network but lived 70 miles away and it was crucial she was kept informed to help determine the level of support Mr C needed. Mrs A says this has caused her distress and she felt desperate and alone. Mrs A says the Council should have followed up decisions it made about Mr C’s care with her and her father to ensure adequate care was in place.
2. Mrs A wants to know how poor and miscommunication issues have been addressed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained Home First is a new initiative which aims to assess people in their homes for up to 14 days and ends sooner if support is not required. It says Mr C’s care was gradually reduced and he cancelled the care. It decided at a multi-disciplinary meeting to cease Home First involvement as Mr C was completing all tasks independently. It acknowledged there was no record that it contacted Mrs A although Mr C was aware. It apologised this did not happen and said it will re-iterate to staff the importance of communication with family at its next team meeting.
7. Mrs A was upset and distressed at not being told Mr C’s assessment period has been terminated sooner than she understood it would be, however, there is no significant injustice from the actions of the Council requiring an ombudsman investigation. We could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding even if we investigated. We are satisfied the Council’s apology and decision to re-iterate communication with family members remedies any injustice to Mrs A.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding. We are satisfied the actions taken by the Council remedies the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman