Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about unacceptable and unprofessional conduct by a care home manager. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the faults have not caused any significant injustice and there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about unacceptable and unprofessional conduct by a manager at his mother’s care home. He complains:
• The manager misled him over possible funding support.
• Inappropriately told the family to move his mother to another care home in front of her and with no reasons given.
• Misused funds as they had received double payment for his mother’s placement as they collected money from his mother and the Council.
• About a data protection breach.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s mother, Mrs Z, received care and support from a residential care home. Mr X was unhappy with the care home manager and considered they were unprofessional and rude during some conversations. He also says the care home manager made derogatory comments about him and made an inappropriate comment about his mother.
6. In its complaint response, the care home said the manager apologised if they came across as uncaring or lacking empathy. The manager also noted they could not recall making any derogatory comments about Mr X.
7. An investigation is not justified as it is not likely to lead to any findings. This is because the Ombudsman can only make finding based on the evidence available. In this case, there is conflicting evidence as Mr X considers the manager made some comments about him, but the manager cannot recall this. There is no way for us to decide what happened or what was said during the conversations. It is also accepted that individuals can have their own subjective opinions about how a conversation went or the tone in which a comment was made.
8. Regarding comments made by the manager that Mrs Z had to move, the care provider said the manager explained Mrs Z possibly required nursing care, although had not yet reached the threshold to be eligible for continuing health care or funded nursing care. The manager also noted a conversation with Mr X’s sister about needing to move Mrs Z to another care home as they could not safely manage Mrs Z’s care needs. The care provider apologised for how the message was delivered and says the matter had been discussed with the manager.
9. It is not likely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to any further findings or outcomes. The care provider has acknowledged some of the information could have been delivered in a better way by the manager and apologised for this. I am satisfied this was an appropriate remedy.
10. Mr X said the manager provided misleading information about funding support for his mother. In the complaint response, the care provided noted the manager provided accurate information regarding the council not being able to provide financial support. Mr X eventually contacted the council himself to get information about any financial support available.
11. While the care provider was likely correct in telling Mr X the council could not assist, best practice would be to signpost to the council and to allow the council to provide the information. This is because the care provider is not the decision maker as to when financial support can be provided. However, given Mr X was able to contact the council to get information, I am satisfied this will not have caused him significant injustice and so an investigation is not justified.
12. Regarding the double payment, the care provider acknowledged there had been a double payment and said the manager was not aware of this. Says the double payment was an oversight as the system had not recognised it and the matter had been put right. An investigation is not justified on this point as it doesn’t appear the accepted fault has caused any significant injustice as there is no evidence the council is chasing Mrs Z for repayment.
13. Finally, Mr X’s complaint about a data protection breach is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO can consider complaints about data handling, including where a breach of data protection legislation has occurred.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the faults have not caused any significant injustice and there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman