Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged care at home. It is unlikely we can add to investigations already taken place or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Care Provider gave poor care to her friend, Ms E, over the last few years. Ms D would raise issues, but the service did not improve, and the Care Provider failed to respond to her e-mails. Ms D says there were some serious safeguarding issues. Ms D wants the Care Provider to overhaul the way it runs its company, and its attitude toward clients and staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the action has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

4. 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 care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms E was receiving care at home from Crossroads Care Gloucestershire Limited (the Care Provider). Ms E died earlier this year. Ms D raises concerns over many years. The Ombudsman would only consider the issues over the last 12 months, issues from longer ago are late complaints. Ms D raised concerns with the Care Provider at the relevant times but gives no good reasons why she did not pursue them further.
8. Ms E has died, and the Ombudsman can provide her no remedy for any impact of poor care. Ms D does not raise any personal injustice that would justify investigation.
9. Ms D refers to safeguarding concerns. The Local Authority would be better placed to consider such concerns, as they are the safeguarding authority responsible for protecting vulnerable adults from abuse or neglect. Ms D could also consider a civil claim, and would need to seek legal advice.
10. The Care Provider accepted fault in communication with Ms D and will work with staff to improve its future service in this area.
11. The coroner and Care Quality Commission were involved after Ms E’s death. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to investigations already completed by these bodies. The Ombudsman can achieve no personal remedy. So, I see no worthwhile outcome to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to investigations that have already taken place or achieve a different outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms D wants for an overhaul of how the Care Provider runs its business or its attitude. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which care should never fall. The CQC will continue to monitor the Care Provider against its standards and seek improvement where it finds fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman