Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings in a residential substance misuse centre because we could not add to the provider’s response on behalf of the Council, the remedy it has offered is suitable to the injustice Mr B claims, and CQC is better placed to consider wider performance issues through its inspection programme.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the residential services the Council arranged for him at a substance misuse rehabilitation centre run by the Nelson Trust were defective and added to his distress, anxiety and mental state while trying to overcome addition.
2. He wants the service to resolve its staffing issues, complete a longstanding refurbishment and repair programme, apologise to clients, make up for the lack of provision in some way, and undergo an unannounced visit where the inspector speaks to both present and previous clients.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the care provider’s responses to his complaints.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The care provider has considered and replied in some detail to Mr B’s complaints. It accepted some parts of its services were not as good as they should have been, and recognised the effect this may have had on Mr B. It also explained the steps it was taking to resolve staffing and premises issues. It also apologised for what went wrong.
8. The care provider offered to remedy any injustice to Mr B by:
• increasing post-treatment family therapy sessions from two to four at no extra cost (to the Council);
• increasing one-to-one counselling sessions to twice weekly until end of Mr B’s programme (in February 2023);
• providing a one-to-one session when Mr B would move on to ‘phase 3’ of the programme in the community; and
• allowing extra flexibility between continuing community programme phases to suit Mr B.
9. I recognise people who use services to help them overcome addiction need them to work effectively as far as possible, and the effects can be significant if they do not. But I am not satisfied the effect of the provider’s faults in this case warrants more than the remedy it has offered. This is not least because Mr B asked for and was granted extra Council funding to extend his programme by four weeks; I doubt he would have done that if the service he was receiving was ineffective.
10. We cannot provide the unannounced inspection visit Mr B believes would help improve how the care provider delivers services. That is the role of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with CQC.
11. I am satisfied we could not achieve significantly more:
• for Mr B by investigating his complaint than the Nelson Trust has provided on behalf of the Council; and
• for other service users than the CQC might through its inspection programme.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not add to the care provider’s response on behalf of the Council, the remedy it has offered is suitable to the injustice Mr B claims, and CQC is better placed to consider wider performance issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman