Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of a care home to allow the complainant to visit her sister. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that he could achieve through additional investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms Q, says that the manager of a care home:
• Refused to allow her to see her sister, S, who was dying of cancer; and
• Sent distressing and inappropriate text messages to her.

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 could add to any previous investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Ms Q and by the Care Provider. I have also sent Ms Q a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms Q’s sister went into a care home, following a serious health issue. Ms Q wanted to visit S, but says that the Manager of the Care Home, refused to allow her to see S.
5. Ms Q also complains that the Manager sent her a number of distressing and inappropriate texts about the matter.
6. Ms Q complained to the Care Provider. However, she was told that ownership of the Home had been transferred to a new Care Provider in December 2019.
7. The new Care Provider investigated the complaint. It appointed an independent investigator to do so, as the Manager, who remains in place, is the niece of both Ms Q and S.
8. Although the Council is responsible for the care, as the funding body, I have accepted the response from the Care Provider, as we do not expect complainants to go through two sets of complaints procedures, and the response refers Ms Q to the LGSCO.
9. The investigator found that the events were related to long standing family disagreements, but she restricted the investigation to what happened in September. She found that that S had capacity to make her own decisions, and did not want to see Ms Q. The Manager said that she was simply following S’s instructions. Although Ms Q disputes both S’s capacity to make decisions at the time, and does not believe that S refused to see her, I have seen no evidence to support her view. Additional investigation is therefore unlikely to find fault in the manager’s decision.
10. The investigator considered the record of the text messages, and concluded that some of them did go beyond what would be expected within a professional relationship. Despite the family relationships involved, the Manager was supposed to be dealing the Ms Q in a professional capacity and the texts did not always reflect his. The investigator recommended that this issue should be followed up in the Manager’s supervision, but concluded no further action was needed.
11. Although I appreciate Ms Q’s distress at being unable to see S before her death, there is nothing that we could achieve for her through further investigation of the events.
12. Ms Q has also complained that the Manager’s daughter phoned her and tried to persuade her not to continue with the complaint. I will not consider this aspect of the complaint as the Manager’s daughter is not an employee of the Home, and has a direct family relationship with Ms Q.

Back to top

Final decision

13. Subject to any comments Ms Q might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman