Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the action of his late mother’s, Mrs B’s, live-in-carer. This is because we could not make a finding of the kind Mr D wants. It would be reasonable for Mr D to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider his request for information Mrs B’s Care Provider is refusing to give him.

The complaint

1. Mr D says his late mother’s, Mrs B’s, Care Provider did not have the capability, experience, or training to provide appropriate care to Mrs B. Mr D says he has video evidence to support his allegation that Mrs B’s live-in-carer did not know when or how to administer CPR to Mrs B when she had a heart attack and did not seek medical intervention when she showed signs of distress and deterioration a few days prior to her death. Mr D says he has requested evidence of the carers training and capabilities, but the Care Provider has refused to provide him with the information he wants. Mr D wants the Care Provider to apologise, accept and acknowledge Mrs B’s carer did not have the appropriate capability to provide care to Mrs B, tell him the truth and not hide behind data protection legislation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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. We could not say whether the carer’s actions contributed to or exacerbated Mrs B’s death even though Mr D has video evidence. It is for a coroner to determine the cause of a death and if not satisfied with the information presented, investigate further.
7. Mr D says he has been refused information about the carer’s capabilities, training, and experience. The Care Provider has confirmed the carer completed mandatory training as required by the Care Quality Commission and had an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. If Mr D is concerned this is not correct he can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether he should have access to information he has been refused under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because we could not make a finding of the kind he wants. It would be reasonable for Mr D to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider his request for information Mrs B’s Care Provider is refusing to give him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman