Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided to Mr Y and the way the Care Provider communicated with his family. The Care Provider has accepted fault and provided remedies in line with our guidance. It has also taken steps to improve its service. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Care Provider:
• provided poor quality domiciliary care to her grandfather, Mr Y;
• failed to communicate with Mr Y’s family, including his attorneys; and
• failed to respond properly to the family’s concerns and complaint.
2. Ms X said this caused significant distress to the family and worsened their grief following Mr Y’s death. She said the Care Provider offered a small ‘goodwill gesture’ to be deducted from the invoice for Mr Y’s care, but that the amount downplayed the seriousness of the issues and was not sufficient.
3. Ms X wanted the Care Provider to apologise, offer a fair financial remedy and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Care Provider about the standard of domiciliary care Mr Y had received before his death. Her concerns included unsafe and unhygienic care, issues with medication, and an unsuitable carer who had not been changed despite the family raising concerns on several occasions. She also raised concerns about the Care Provider’s lack of response to the family’s attempts to make contact.
8. The Care Provider responded through its internal complaints process. It accepted there had been fault in the care package it provided and its communication with the family, and acknowledged the injustice this had caused to Mr Y and his family. It gave meaningful apologies. It explained the steps it had taken as a result of the complaint which included staff training and dealing with certain matters through HR processes. It also offered to reduce Mr Y’s bill by £1,000.
9. Ms X was not satisfied with the Care Provider’s response and complained to us. She explained she sought compensation for services that were either poorly delivered or not delivered at all, and given the cost of Mr Y’s care package she did not feel £1,000 was sufficient to recognise the impact of fault.
10. We would normally only recommend a refund of care fees to an estate in clear cut circumstances where paid for services have not been provided. For example, this could be where someone has paid for five months’ care but only received four months, or where they have paid for a service that should have been funded by a local authority. There was not a quantifiable financial injustice in this case.
11. Where the injustice to someone who has since died is less tangible, for example distress, harm or risk, we will not normally recommend a symbolic remedy in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We do not expect an organisation to make a symbolic payment to someone’s estate. We will also not normally recommend payment to an estate where we have to make a judgment about the quality of care provided. This is because these are remedies for injustice to the person who was in receipt of care and a symbolic remedy cannot have the effect of remedying their injustice once the person has died.
12. While the Care Provider characterised its offer of a financial remedy as a ‘without prejudice gesture of goodwill’ rather than a remedy to recognise injustice caused to Mr Y’s family, the amount is not one further investigation by us would increase. The Care Provider has already offered remedies, including effective apologies, in line with our Guidance on Remedies. I am satisfied the action the Care Provider proposed was suitable to remedy the injustice caused and to prevent the same issues occurring for others using its services. Further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Care Provider has already offered remedies in line with our guidance and further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman