Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an incident that happened in November 2021 which led to her father falling and suffering a serious injury. She says the carer failed to move her father appropriately. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about an incident that happened in November 2021, which led to her father falling and suffering a serious injury. She says the carer failed to move her father appropriately. She also complains the Care Provider tried to misrepresent what happened by trying to blame her father for the fall.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 an investigation if we decide 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 considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s father, Mr B received care and support at home. She complains about an incident that happened in November 2021, where his carer moved him without the appropriate footwear in place. This caused her father to slip and caused him a serious injury.
7. The Care Provider responded to Ms X’s complaint in January 2021. In its response, the Care Provider acknowledged Mr B’s risk assessment referenced the use of a special boot, in addition to the use of a zimmer frame. The Care Provider accepted Mr B was not wearing his boot at the time of the fall. The Care Provider’s complaint response did not signpost Ms X to us.
8. The relevant council then opened a safeguarding inquiry to consider the incident. The council initially found the concerns to be unsubstantiated, but later changed its outcome to substantiated. The council said this was because it became aware of evidence an occupational therapist recommended Mr B wear a specific boot when mobilising and that the carer failed to put this boot on Mr B before mobilising him.
9. The council confirmed it had discussed the matter with the Care Provider at the time, and that the carer in question had been spoken to. The council issued its final complaint response on this and other matters in July 2022, and signposted Ms X to us.
10. Ms X did not bring a complaint to us until October 2023, nearly 15 months after she was signposted to us by the council. Ms X explained the main reason for the delay was due to her waiting to hear back from her solicitors regarding a legal claim.
11. I acknowledge it took Ms X’s solicitors some time to provide her with advice on her legal claim. However, I do not consider this to be a good reason to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Ms X had the option to bring the complaint to us after the council issued its final complaint response in July 2022, but she chose to consider a legal claim instead.
12. In any case, even if we were to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint, we would not investigate. The crux of the issue is the question of why the care worker did not have the boot to hand before they attempted to support Mr B to move. Given the length of time that has passed since the incident, we are not likely to uncover any more information to answer this question. Therefore, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Even if we were to exercise discretion, we would not investigate. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman