Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person has died and so we can provide no remedy for their injustice. The provider has already apologised to the complainant to acknowledge their distress. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the care provider acting for the Council did not properly help her relative, Ms D, with food and medication. Ms D wandered from her property and ended up in hospital. Ms C says the Council failed to protect Ms D’s property while she was in hospital. Ms D wanted to return home but never did. This has been distressing for Ms C and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. 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)

3. Ms D has died; we have accepted Ms C as a suitable representative.
4. 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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. The Council was responsible to meet Ms D’s adult social care needs. It did this by arranging a care provider to meet her needs at home.
8. Ms D has died and so we can provider her with no remedy for the impact of any poor care she may have received. There is no wider public interest to justify the Ombudsman’s resource because the Council’s safeguarding team has already considered the concerns.
9. Ms D says money went missing from Ms D’s home while she was in hospital. That is theft and is a matter for the police to investigate.
10. Although it has been distressing for Ms C, the care provider has already apologised for any undue distress and inconvenience to the family.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to investigations that have already taken place or achieve any worthwhile outcome. The injustice to Ms C does not in itself justify an investigation and has already been remedied by an apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman