Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Care Home stopped Mr X’s visits to a relative. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Home’s actions to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a Care Home stopped him from visiting a relative for six weeks after he complained about visiting restrictions it had imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He said those restrictions were not in-line with the Government’s guidance at the time. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to investigate to bring closure to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 34 B, 34C and 34 H(3 and 4) as amended)
3. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X visited a relative at the Care Home on a weekly basis. He complained the Care Home decided to restrict visits to 30 minutes following concerns about a new COVID-19 variant. He said that he wanted to visit his relative for an hour.
7. Mr X and the Care Home’s manager subsequently had a disagreement about the visiting arrangements. The relative Mr X had visited was also present. The Care Home made a safeguarding referral about Mr X. It also suspended his visits to his relative.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home’s decision to apply time-restrictions to visits. There is no evidence Mr X was caused a significant injustice by this decision. In addition, the restrictions are also no-longer in place, therefore there is no meaningful outcome from investigating this complaint further.
9. Mr X also complained about the Care Home’s decision to suspend his visits. The Care Provider’s complaint response states it took this action:
• Whilst the safeguarding referral was investigated to ensure no harm came to his relative; and
• To support its staff, as they had reported concerns Mr X was unhelpful and uncooperative as they attempted to follow the Care Provider’s procedures.
10. It also said that Mr X made threats against the Home, and it felt in that atmosphere, it felt it had no choice but to suspend visits until it resolved the situation. It said that following a meeting it was agreed Mr X could visit if he complied with all the with the Home’s requirements.
11. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Care Provider has set out its reasons for suspending Mr X’s visits. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify further investigation. Additionally, it met with Mr X to review its decision and he is now able to visit. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman