Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about care provided to her late mother, Mrs D. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the response already provided to Ms B or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs D. Ms B says when she visited Mrs D in September 2019, she found her hair matted and had to call a hairdresser to attend. Ms B says someone left the front door open, a neighbour entered Mrs D’s property and filmed Mrs D and her property on a mobile phone. Ms B says Mrs D’s DVD collection is missing. Ms B says she has not had answers to all the questions she raised and wants to know why the care provider is still operating, why safeguarding did not follow up her concerns, what happened to the DVD’s, why a neighbour was allowed to enter and film in the property and why Mrs D’s hair was not brushed.

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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Ms B and the Council provided. I sent Ms B and her representative a copy of my draft decision and considered Ms B’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B complained to her late mother’s care provider and the Council about her concerns regarding Mrs D’s care but did not receive a response.
5. Ms B asked the Ombudsman to consider her concerns.
6. The Council advised the Ombudsman Ms B’s complaint had not been dealt with under safeguarding or its own complaint processes. It said it received Ms B’s email about the concerns following Mrs D’s death and forwarded it to its Contracts and Commissioning Team. It says the Contracts and Commissioning team discussed Ms B’s concerns with the care provider who confirmed it had responded to Ms B’s complaint and advised it will cooperate with the police enquiry.
7. Ms B emailed the care provider on 30 January. The care provider responded on 3 August. It apologised for the late delay in responding. It said it did not respond to Ms B’s initial email because it understood from her there was to be a police investigation and believed they would be contacted for a statement in due course. It says it sent Ms B a number of emails but they were returned as inbox quota full. Ms B say the care provider sent only three emails over two days. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice caused by the delay in responding and will not investigate this point further. Where the substantive matters do not warrant investigation, he will not normally investigate how a Council has responded. That is the case here.
8. The care provider advised Ms B carers did not allow the neighbour access, were unaware of anyone entering the property, did not witness anyone entering the property, did not speak to Mrs D’s neighbours and did not know about the missing items.
9. Ms B disputes this and says she received an email from the care provider advising her that Mrs D’s neighbour was videoing carers. However, the Ombudsman could not say either Ms B or Mrs D was caused any injustice from the care provider informing Ms B of this point.
10. The care provider has advised Ms B it did not know or let neighbours into Mrs D’s property. The Ombudsman could not add to this. While Ms B has not had all the answers she wants to her questions it is not the role of the Ombudsman to provide these. The Ombudsman could not say what happened to the missing items and the care provider has confirmed it will cooperate with a police investigation. There is no evidence of either Mrs D or Ms B have been caused a significant injustice because of the care provider’s actions.
11. Ms B says Mrs D’s hair was matted and stuck together when she visited her in September 2019. The Ombudsman could not make a finding on this point now and could not say this was because carers did not brush Mrs D’s hair or remedy any injustice to Mrs D now as she is deceased.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the response already provided to Ms B or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman