Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. Because there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the care provider and police gave her conflicting information about what happened the night a car drove into the building where her relative, Ms E, lives. Ms D believes the care provider lied about what happened so worries about Ms E’s safety. This is increasing Ms D’s anxiety. Ms D says she has not been able to see Ms E since she has moved further away, and Ms E is isolated. Ms D wants the care provider to admit what happened and wants it to sack the member of staff who she says lied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by someone we consider to be suitable. We have accepted Ms D as a suitable representative for Ms E.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council is responsible to meet Ms E’s adult social care needs. It does this by arranging her accommodation and support with the care provider.
8. The incident has been distressing for Ms D. The conflicting information from the police and the care provider about the building evacuation and whether Ms E was left alone has added further distress.
9. It is unlikely we would get to the bottom of the conflicting information where the care provider says staff members were on-site with Ms E and the police say everyone was evacuated. Ms E was asleep and did not suffer any harm so had no injustice.
10. Ms E is living elsewhere which was decided under the best interest process of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Ms D disputes the decision. The Court of Protection is better placed to consider that concern. The court can decide where Ms E should live.
11. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms D wants of having a staff member dismissed as we have no powers over personnel matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint. I understand Ms D’s worries. But it would not be a justified use of our resource to investigate solely to try and get answers for Ms D about what happened. There is not a significant enough injustice to justify investigation and it is unlikely investigation would lead to any different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman