Summary: Ms F complains on behalf of her late father that L&Q Living had not met his care needs. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint as L&Q Living is not an adult social care provider within our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Ms F complains on behalf of her late father Mr J, that:
• L&Q Living failed to meet his care needs or put in place a care plan.
• There was poor communication with the key worker.
• L&Q Living did not respond to her 2018 complaint about the matter.
2. Ms F says as a result, when Mr J was admitted to hospital he could not be discharged until a care and support plan was in place, but Mr J died of a hospital acquired infection before the Council could complete the assessment. Ms F says if her father had been able to return home quickly, this would not have happened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
5. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information Ms F and the Provider have sent.
7. Ms F and the 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

What happened

8. Mr J had health conditions and anxiety. He was living in St Mary’s Church House, which is sheltered accommodation managed by L&Q Living (the Provider).
9. In December 2016 Mr J declined to have calls from the Provider and signed a disclaimer. In June 2017 he declined to be reviewed for a support plan. In 2017 Mr J was admitted to hospital. Ms F says following his recovery, he was discharged without a care plan in place.
10. On 28 February 2018 the Provider wrote to Mr J with an appointment for a review to risk assess him and develop a support plan. The Provider says Mr J did not attend the appointment.
11. Mr J was admitted to hospital in March 2018. After he recovered the local Council’s social worker advised he should not be discharged immediately as he had no support in place at his home address. She referred him for a care and support assessment by the Council. About a week later, before the assessment could be completed, Mr J developed a hospital-acquired infection and became very unwell. He sadly passed away on 26 March 2018.

Ms F’s complaint

12. Ms F asked the Provider for the information they had about Mr J in April 2018. The Provider sent her Mr J’s tenancy agreement and his refusals to be reviewed. Ms F asked how she could complain about a lack of care being provided, but there is no evidence of a response.
13. In January 2019 Ms F asked the provider for a copy of Mr J’s care plan. The provider replied that no care was delivered.
14. Ms F approached the Ombudsman in November 2019 saying she was unhappy with the response she had received. As a result, the Provider sent her information about how to formally complain.
15. Ms F contacted the Provider in January 2020. It replied to her queries and requests for information on 24 January 2020 and 13 February 2020. Ms F remained dissatisfied and came to the Ombudsman.

My findings

16. St Mary’s Church House is sheltered accommodation for people aged 55 or over. Sheltered housing providers need to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care, which is a regulated activity. As such the Provider is registered with the CQC.
17. However, the Provider does not provide personal care at this site. It says it has received some funding in the past to provide housing related support under a ‘warden’ service. This meant a member of staff was available for advice and support, and could provide a morning call service and a weekly 15 minute visit. The warden did not provide personal care. If people required care this was arranged via the local authority and provided by a domiciliary care provider.
18. The law says the Ombudsman can investigate the actions of an 'adult social care provider', that is a provider which carries out an activity regulated by the CQC, such as personal care. The provision of housing is not a regulated activity.
19. In Mr J’s case, the Provider is not one the Ombudsman can investigate as it was acting as a housing provider only and not providing a regulated adult social care activity. We are therefore unable to continue to investigate Ms F’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have discontinued this investigation as the body complained of is outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman