Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care received by the complainant’s mother and the way his complaint was handled. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the response the complainant has already received. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the residential care received by his mother (Mrs Y). Mr X says his mother was found on the floor after she slipped or fell out of her chair. He says the Care Provider has provided conflicting information about whether his mother had been injured. Mr X is unhappy with the time taken to deal with his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I have included below some key points from the Care Provider’s responses to Mr X.
• When a member of staff first called Mr X, they said Mrs Y might have a sore bottom from slipping out of her chair. This was because there was a risk of bruising. But the stage 1 response said there was no injury or harm to Mrs Y. This was confirmed in the stage 2 response.
• Mr X had asked if his mother should be checked on every fifteen minutes. The Care Provider said it was unusual for Mrs X to sit in a chair in her room. The Care Provider had reviewed her posture in an armchair and there was no indication she was not safe. This was her first fall since admission in 2018.
• Mr X sent his first complaint on 12 July and a response was posted on 16 July. Mr X contacted the Care Provider on 11 August to say he had not received a response. A copy was posted, and Mr X received the letter on 14 August.
• In his stage two complaint Mr X had referred to concerns about his mother’s personal care. These had been dealt with in a previous response.
7. I understand how upset Mr X is by what happened. But it is unlikely we could add anything else to the Care Provider’s response and so we will not investigate. The Care Provider has explained Mrs Y was not injured, has checked her posture, and clarified why Mr X received seemingly conflicting information. We could not add anything more.
8. Also, while I understand Mr X is unhappy with the time taken to receive the stage one response, the Care Provider has said it responded quickly, but Mr X did not receive its letter. It is unlikely we could say exactly what happened and it is not a good use of our resources to look at complaint handling as a standalone issue. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response he has already received. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman