Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care his brother Mr C received from his care provider during the past five years. This is because it is unlikely further investigation could add to the Council’s response. There is no good reason for his to disapply the law in this case.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the care his brother, Mr C, has received during the past five years resulting in his weight increasing to nearly 30 stone. Mr B says transition arrangements for Mr C’s move to his new care provider were not properly considered especially in relation to his transport. Mr B says he want a full explanation for Mr C’s weight gain and wants to know how it was monitored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 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

4. I discussed the concerns with Mr B and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complained to the Council about Mr C’s weight gain over the past five years and his concerns about the transition arrangements from one care provider to another resulting in Mr C becoming distressed and having to return to his previous provider.
6. The response to Mr B’s complaints was from the Council on behalf of the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Council as Mr C’s care needs and provision are jointly funded by both agencies.
7. The Council says it investigated Mr B’s complaints and agreed Mr C’s weight increase was a matter of concern, which, since his move in May 2019, was being actively addressed. It said Mr C’s weight gain had been of concern to his care providers in the past, but the complexity of his needs had made controlling his eating and managing his weight difficult. It said his previous care provider had raised concerns about his weight gain and the risks incurred. It said Mr C had been referred to a dietician and attempts made to reduce his calorie intake and increase his mobility. Following the move to his current home, Mr C has been on a weight reduction programme, his weight is monitored and discussed at fortnightly multi-disciplinary team meetings. The Council has confirmed Mr C’s weight is steadily reducing.
8. Mr B was concerned about the transition arrangements in place for Mr B when he moved to his new accommodation and care provider. The Council acknowledged it had underestimated the need and availability for an adapted vehicle to transport Mr B to his new home resulting in him being distressed and having to return to his previous home until suitable transport could be sourced. It apologised for the distress caused and upheld this element of Mr B’s complaint.
9. Mr B says he has been challenging the Council and Mr C’s care provider over the last five years regarding his weight gain. The Ombudsman considers complaints where the matters complained were brought to him within 12 months. While Mr B says he has been complaining to the Council, he has not come to the Ombudsman until recently. There is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law in this case. The Council has explained since his move in 2019, Mr C has been placed on a weight loss programme, is losing weight, and his weight is regularly monitored. The Ombudsman could achieve no more than this even if he investigated.
10. Mr B says Mr C’s care plan and transition arrangements should have included his transport needs. The Council upheld this part of Mr B’s complaint and agreed this should have been the case. It apologised to Mr B and Mr C for any distress caused. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation could add to the Council’s response. There is no good reason for his to disapply the law in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman