Summary: We have ended this investigation. Mrs Z complained about the level of care provided to her parents, Mr and Mrs X. The Care Provider upheld Mrs Z’s complaint and offered to reimburse the care fees for the relevant period. That was in line with our Guidance on remedies and so further investigation of this complaint would not have lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complained the Care Provider, Trinity Care at Home Ltd, provided poor care to her parents Mr and Mrs X which she said accelerated Mrs X’s death and impacted Mr X’s health. Mrs Z wanted the Care Provider to provide compensation for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the documents Mrs Z provided and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
5. Mrs Z and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Our Guidance on remedies

6. Our guidance on remedies sets out how we make decisions about remedying injustice caused by fault in a care provider’s actions. In complaints about the provision of care the guidance states we may recommend a reimbursement of care fees where care fell to an unacceptable standard. We consider all the relevant circumstances and dependent on the individual facts we may consider that some fees went towards other elements of care that were satisfactorily received. We may consider recommending a symbolic payment to remedy distress caused by a quality issue, if it was not so significant to warrant a reimbursement of care fees.

What happened

7. Mr and Mrs X lived together at home and were both elderly. Mrs Z is Mr and Mrs X’s daughter. For several years the Care Provider had been providing a package of care for Mr and Mrs X at home.
8. In the spring of 2023 the Care Provider introduced a new care worker to Mr and Mrs X’s care package. The care worker was in post for a few weeks. Mr X raised concerns about the care worker to Mrs Z. Mrs Z complained to the Care Provider about the level of care her parents received. The Care Provider removed the care worker from the care package. A week later Mrs X died.
9. The Care Provider investigated and responded to Mrs Z complaint. It upheld all elements of Mrs Z’s complaint. It identified the improvements it had already made and would continue to make to improve its service. It apologised for the poor care and offered a full refund of the care fees for the weeks the care worker was in post.
10. The Care Provider and Mrs Z reported the matter to the local council as a safeguarding concern. Mrs Z states the council completed a safeguarding investigation and made two further recommendations to the Care Provider.
11. Mrs Z told me that she believed the Care Provider had completed all the recommendations and it continued to provide a package of care to Mr X at home.
12. I ended this investigation. The Care Provider offered to reimburse the care fees for the weeks Mr and Mrs X received poor care. This remedy was in line with our guidance on remedies and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition the Care Provider had identified service improvements, and the subsequent safeguarding enquiry made further recommendations. I could not add to the previous investigation, and there is nothing to suggest the Care Provider had not implemented those recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I ended my investigation. The Care Provider agreed to refund the relevant care charges and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman