Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of care provided by her father’s care home and about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaints.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the quality of care provided by her father’s care home. She also complains about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns about the care home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s father, Mr Z, was discharged into a care home from hospital. The Council confirmed it was not involved with placing Mr Z in the care home and believed the placement was commissioned by Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (ICB). The Council confirmed Mr Z’s placement was funded under NHS continuing healthcare.
7. When an ICB funds someone under CHC, they also take responsibility for someone’s associated social care needs/support. Therefore, any complaint about the quality of the care provided is against the care home (as the health provider) and the ICB (as the commissioner and funder). This is a complaint that needs to be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
8. We can consider Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns. The Council provided us with a copy of its safeguarding investigation report, which I reviewed.
9. The report is very detailed in outlining each concern raised by Mrs X, and the information gathered and considered for each concern. Clear findings on each point were made, with the Council’s rationale for its decision. The investigating officer involved both Mrs X and Mr Z in the enquiries by seeking their views and comments on the concerns.
10. The report found some of the concerns were substantiated, and recommendations made. For other concerns, the Council identified there were risks and, and again, recommended actions for the care home to reduce the risks.
11. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council. The Council has followed the correct safeguarding process and prepared a detailed and thorough safeguarding investigation report. There is no evidence the safeguarding process or the investigation completed was flawed. Therefore, the Ombudsman could not question or find fault with the findings reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman