Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s consultation process regarding the closure of the care home where her late father, Mr C, lived. This is because there is no evidence of a significant enough injustice being caused to Mrs B to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council misled the public and failed to provide information before the end of its consultation period regarding its proposal to close seven care homes in the area including one where her late father, Mr C lived. Mrs B says although the Council later decided not to go ahead with its plans to close the homes, this decision was taken after Mr C died and she and other residents and their families were caused upset and distress by the proposed closures. Mrs B says this was exacerbated by the COVID19 situation and the lack of contact she had with Mr C prior to his death in May. Mrs B says the Council:

• Reported in press releases and public documents that the independent survey on Mr C’s Care Home said that rewiring was required – but this was not included in the survey.
• Reported in press releases and public documents the cost to repair the 10 homes earmarked for closure or refurbishment would be £34million, but did not indicate over what period of time. The £34million was for 15 homes over 25 years and majority was normal expected maintenance expenditure not extra costs revealed by surveys;
• said the cost for Mr C’s care home repairs was £500K more than that estimated in the survey report and did not provide evidence of the extra costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mrs B and the Council provided. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B was unhappy with the Council’s consultation process and decisions it made to close homes in the area including Mr C’s. Although it later decided not to go ahead with its proposals, this was after Mr C had died.
5. Mrs B says she has been distressed and upset by the proposed decision to close the home and says the Council has not fully answered all her questions about the inaccuracies in the consultation process and financial discrepancies.
6. The role of the Ombudsman is to remedy injustice caused by administrative fault. The Council has now decided not to go ahead with the proposed closures and whilst Mrs B was distressed and upset by the initial proposals, there is no significant injustice to Mrs B from the actions of the Council warranting further investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of a significant enough injustice being caused to Mrs B to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman