Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we would add to the care provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The care provider accepted fault, apologised for the distress caused, and acted to improve future service. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about breach of personal data.

The complaint

1. Mr E says a care provider acting for the Council gave poor care to his relative, Ms F, for example not showering for two weeks and ignoring personal alarm calls. A care worker recorded Mr E without permission or consent and sent it to other people. This has been distressing for Mr E; he wants better systems in place to improve standards of care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

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

3. Ms F has died; we have accepted Mr E as a suitable representative.
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 fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council arranged adult social care for Ms F so remains responsible for the actions of the care provider.
9. The care provider accepted some fault in its service and apologised to Mr E. It explained the actions it took to improve service. It also accepted its staff should not have recorded Mr E and ensured the recording was deleted.
10. Ms F has died and so we can provide her with no personal remedy for the impact of any poor care she received. The care provider has taken sufficient action to acknowledge Mr E’s distress, acted to improve future service, and deleted the recording. If Mr E is not satisfied with the actions taken about the data breach, he can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office who upholds information rights and would be better placed to consider that further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr E’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the previous investigation or reach a different outcome. We are satisfied with the actions already taken to acknowledge fault and improve service. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the data breach.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman