Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in adult social care provision. This is because the adult has died, so we can achieve no worthwhile outcome for them now. The injustice to the complainant would not justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B says they asked for direct payments to buy his father (Mr C’s) care support, but the Council delayed the matter. Mr C died before the direct payments were ever put in place. Mr B believes if it was not for the delay, Mr C may have been able to come home from hospital as would have had appropriate care support in place via the direct payment. Mr C died in hospital. Mr B says the Council did not properly follow its complaint procedure, and again caused delays. The Council’s actions caused anxiety and frustration to Mr B, and much effort which proved futile.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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. Mr C received care at home arranged by the Council but wished to change to direct payments and employ his own care support. Mr C has since died, so the Ombudsman could provide no remedy to him for any impact caused by any delay if we investigated and found fault by the Council.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. There would be some frustration caused to Mr C’s family if they have experienced unnecessary delays and poor communication, but we would not consider this to be significant to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. There is no real outcome to now achieve given the service has ended.
9. Mr B is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The main person affected was Mr C, for who we could provide no remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman