Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care provided to his son, Mr C in 2019. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B says for the past three years he and his partner have been put through hell because the Council failed to properly consider his son’s, Mr C’s, capacity and his ability to make appropriate decisions for himself. Mr B says he moved in to care for Mr C when he suffered life changing injuries following a road traffic accident in 2009 and required 24-hour care but left the property in 2019 when he was told Mr C had capacity to decide where he wanted to live and who he wanted to care for him. Mr B moved back into the property in September 2020 at Mr C’s request and was concerned about the state of the property which took him and his partner five days to clean. Mr B is concerned about incidences that happened to Mr C during the period he was not living there and says his carers did not properly care for him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B complained he was made subject to a safeguarding alert when he removed the key from Mr C’s key safe following a theft from the property in 2019. The outcome of the safeguarding investigation was that Mr B must ensure carers can access the property at all times. There is no evidence of fault regarding this point warranting an Ombudsman investigation now. Mr B could have come to us in 2019 if he was concerned a safeguarding investigation into his actions was not properly considered.
7. Mr B complained about care Mr C received during the period he was not living in the property, including incontinence management, observations from family and friends that Mr C was shouted at by staff when he was in the community, and an incident when Mr C was mugged in the community and Mr B was not told until the following day. The Council’s investigation said Mr B should have been informed about mugging at the time and should have been reassured the police had been informed and that Mr C was settled and okay. It apologised he did not find out until the following day when he visited.
8. Mr B was concerned Mr C was left embarrassed in a restaurant in 2019 because he was not receiving appropriate continence care. The Council investigated this point but did not uphold Mr B’s concerns about Mr C’s incontinence wear and explained what care Mr C receives. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
9. The Council says the concerns Mr B raised about Mr C being shouted were discussed with him. When discussed with Mr C he said he was shocked when the carer shouted that he was not to touch a family member he had seen whilst out in the community, but he understood this was because of Covid restrictions and knew the carer was trying to keep him safe. Mr C expressed he felt safe in his home and with his staff team. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
10. Mr B says he and his partner had to spend five days cleaning Mr C’s house when they moved back in with him in September 2020 because it was in a disgusting state. The Council said pre-Covid a manager regularly checked the property and cleaning schedule and found the house to be clean and tidy. The Council acknowledged these checks were not possible during the Covid crisis, however Mr C’s advocate had visited him regularly in his home in July, August, September, October, and November 2019 and had no concerns about the general cleanliness of the home. The Council investigation found that the oven was dirty, and discussions were held with staff to address this. However, although daily logs recorded staff were carrying out daily household tasks, it acknowledged the oversight of housework standards had been disrupted by Covid-19 restrictions. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
11. Some of Mr B’s complaints are about incidences that happened in 2019 during a period he was not living with Mr C. The Council has investigated and responded to Mr B’s concerns about Mr C’s care and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding. The Council confirmed Mr C was deemed to have capacity about who he wanted to provide his care, where he wanted to live and where he wanted to have his respite care. Mr B says Mr C has recently had a Mental Capacity Act assessment and does not have capacity in these areas other than where he receives his respite care.
12. Mr C was deemed to have capacity and is happy with his current care provider. We could not say Mr C lacked capacity in 2019 or say the Council should remove Mr C’s current care provider. Further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses.
13. The Council apologised to Mr B for failing to advise him at the earliest opportunity when Mr C was mugged in 2019. It reassured Mr B as parents, he and his partner are valued in their role and are treated with courtesy and respect. Mr B’s concerns have been responded to. The Council supported Mr B’s view that Mr C should have a fresh start with a new social worker and suggested the Council consider exploring an early transition to the Adult Social Care team. It also said the Council should assure themselves care staff receive appropriate training and awareness to maintain accurate and complete records, and actions outlined in the support plan are reflected daily, and, as commissioner, review practices regarding safeguarding notifications to check whether actions are routinely followed up. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman