Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way she was made to feel at a meeting. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about the way she was made to feel at a meeting. Ms B says staff were unprofessional throughout the meeting, she was not informed a safeguarding lead would be present, so she was unable to arrange for her advocate to attend and is unhappy with the content of an email sent to her advocate. Ms B says she believes care staff viewed her differently following the meeting which affected the working relationship. Ms B says this impacted on her own mental health, caused her distress, and made her feel like she was being ambushed which impacted on the care she was able to provide to her son. In addition, she was not signposted to the Ombudsman. Ms B says she wants a full review of policies around complaints, appropriate training around safeguarding an apology and financial compensation for the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider did not accept it had acted unprofessionally or without integrity and consistency. It accepted it was a difficult and emotional meeting for Ms B. It said the intention was to have a separate discussion about safeguarding concerns with Ms B but this did not go ahead. We could not make a different finding even if we investigated.
6. The Care Provider said it did not know Ms B had an advocate so will, in the future ask whether a parent/carer has an advocate and undertake all staff training regarding the role of an advocacy. It invited Ms B if she wished to be involved, to give a talk to staff as part of the staff training. We could not make a different finding even if we investigated.
7. Ms B was distressed by the contact and purpose of the meeting; however, we would not be critical in this instance given the Care Provider did not know Ms B had an advocate. The Care Provider has acknowledged it was a difficult meeting and further investigation could not add to this. The Care Provider says it will undertake staff training on advocacy and will in the future ensure carers are asked whether they want to invite their advocates to attend meetings. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
8. The Care Provider is no longer providing care to Ms B’s son so she will need to ensure his new provider is aware she has an advocate who will accompany her to meetings. Whilst Ms B felt ambushed and was distressed at the content of the meeting, we could not make a finding on how a person perceives information.
9. We expect Care Providers and councils to signpost complainants to the Ombudsman when its internal processes have been exhausted but will not investigate this point. While Ms B was not signposted to the Ombudsman she complained to us and we considered her complaint. There is no significant injustice regarding this point for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman