Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the quality of care a company provided to her father. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more for Mrs B by investigating her complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, has complained on behalf of her father, Mr C, about the quality of care provided by a company (the care provider). The care was commissioned by the Council. Mrs B told us Mr C suffered from chest infections and she was very concerned at the state in which the care company left Mr C and his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mrs B provided, her comments on my draft decision and the care provider’s responses to her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B has told us Mr C has, sadly, now passed away.
5. Mrs B complained in particular that the care provider left the commode at Mr C’s home with the lid off full of excrement and Mr C’s pyjamas with excrement on in the hallway. She said Mr C’s house smelt like a sewer when she arrived. Mrs B says the care company failed to clean up the faeces properly and she found faeces on her father’s shoes and the wheels of the commode. She says the carers left the situation overnight. But she lives nearly so she says she could have visited had the company contacted her.
6. Mrs B told us the care provider left bleach with water in in the commode bucket. She was concerned Mr C could get bleach splashed on him. Mrs B says she is also unhappy with the way the care provider dealt with the collection of gloves and aprons.
7. To put things right Mrs B told us she would like a face to face apology from the care provider’s manager and she wants to know what the manager has put in place to stop this happening again.
8. The care provider spoke to the carers involved and investigated what happened. The care provider then wrote to Mrs B apologising unreservedly for failing to empty the commode and leaving it overnight. So, it is not at issue that this was fault by the care provider. The care provider’s manager offered to meet Mrs B and apologise in person if Mrs B let her know her availability. The manager said the disciplinary process they were following would help to ensure the same thing did not happen again. In its final response the care provider apologised unreservedly for not emptying the commode, leaving the soiled clothes and not cleaning the carpet to a standard Mrs B considered to be acceptable. The care provider said both the Council, as commissioners of the service, and the Care Quality Commission were aware of what had happened because Mrs B had reported it. It confirmed Mrs B had cancelled the care it was providing for Mr C.
9. It is unlikely we could achieve significantly more for Mrs B by investigating this complaint. The care company no longer provides services to Mr C. It has apologised in writing and offered a face to face meeting to Mrs B in its initial response. Where a care provider has provided a written apology, we would not pursue a complaint solely to call for a face to face apology. The care provider has confirmed to Mrs B it has applied its disciplinary procedures to help to ensure the same thing did not happen again. In those circumstances there is insufficient justification for us to investigate this complaint.
10. Mrs B questions whether the care provider has left other vulnerable adults in a similar situation. We are not a regulator. We normally expect someone to complain to the Care Quality Commission about possible breaches of standards. That is because it is the regulatory body for social care. Part of its role is to make sure social care services provide people with safe, high-quality care.
11. The Council has told us it is willing to investigate and respond to a complaint form Mrs B if she is dissatisfied with the service it has provided. We would expect Mrs B to do this before we would consider a complaint about the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more for Mrs B by investigating her complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman