Summary: Mr X complained Anchor Hanover Group (the care provider) wrongly restricted his visits to his father’s care home. He says this distressed him. We uphold the complaint. The care provider communicated poorly with Mr X, did not review his visiting restrictions and did not keep proper records. The care provider has agreed to apologise and improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the care provider wrongly restricted his visits to his father's care home. He says this distressed him and affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions. Part 3A is for complaints about care bought directly from a care provider by the person who needs it or their representative, and includes care funded privately or with direct payments using a personal budget. (Part 3 and Part 3A Local Government Act 1974; section 25(6) & (7) of the Act)
3. 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. If they have caused a significant injustice or could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B, 34C and 34H(3 and 4) as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. We normally name care homes and other care providers in our decision statements. However, we will not do so if we think someone could be identified from the name of the care home or care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(8), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the care provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the care provider had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

10. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.
11. Regulation 9A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 ensures people in care homes can receive visitors. It says the care provider can restrict visiting in exceptional circumstances where a visit may pose a significant health, safety or welfare risk to other persons on the premises. The care provider should clearly communicate information about the restriction to those affected and be clear about who they can contact with any queries and concerns. The care provider should also regularly review any visiting restrictions and remove them as soon as possible.
12. Regulation 9A says the care provider must keep a record of any assessment and decisions on visiting and show:
• How they have made these decisions and who has been involved
• Whether restrictions are lawful, legitimate and proportionate
• Whether they have implemented any mitigations to make sure they have used the least restrictive, most reasonable option when they have reviewed the restrictions
13. The care provider’s care home contract says it reserves the right to refuse entry to any visitor who they reasonably believe poses a significant risk of serious harm or offence to staff, residents and other visitors. It also says the care provider will regularly review any refused entry.

What happened

14. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. In March 2025, the care provider admitted Mr X’s father into its care home. The local Council funded Mr X’s father’s care costs.
16. In March 2025 care home and Council representatives met Mr X to discuss concerns about his behaviour when visiting his father. The meeting agreed that all parties would start afresh and Mr X would contact the care home manager or Council social worker if he had any queries about his father’s care.
17. In early August 2025, care home staff reported that Mr X had shouted, sworn and intimidated a staff member while visiting his father. Care home staff asked Mr X to leave the building. The following day the care home telephoned Mr X and told him it was restricting his visiting hours.
18. One week later Mr X complained to the care provider about the care home restricting his visiting hours. He denied he had behaved badly and said staff had insulted him.
19. At the end of August 2025 the care provider responded to Mr X’s complaint. The care provider said it was justified in restricting Mr X’s visiting hours and this would continue. It also apologised for a staff member making an inappropriate comment to Mr X. Mr X was not satisfied with the care provider’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint.
20. One day later, the care home reported Mr X had behaved inappropriately towards another member of staff while visiting. The following day the care provider’s senior officer, Z, wrote to Mr X asking him not to visit the care home while it investigated the matter. It said it had told care home staff to refuse him access and would contact him when it completed the investigation.
21. At the start of September 2025, Z wrote to Mr X saying they were investigating the reported incident and asking to meet Mr X to discuss the matter. Mr X immediately replied denying the reported incident and saying he would co-operate fully with the investigation, but would not meet in person. He asked for written communications only.
22. Two days later Mr X wrote to Z saying the allegation was false and giving his account of events. He said the visiting restrictions distressed him and his father. He asked Z for advice on the procedure and timeline for resolving the matter and copies of relevant evidence.
23. In mid-September 2025 Mr X wrote to Z chasing a response to his previous contact. On the same day Z replied saying they had considered Mr X’s account and statements from care home staff. Z said they been unable to confirm some parts of the reported incident but still considered Mr X’s actions had caused distress. They said the Council had invited Mr X to a meeting three days later to discuss future visiting arrangements. Mr X immediately replied saying key issues remained unresolved and he would not be attending the planned meeting because he wanted written communication only.
24. The following day Mr X wrote to Z asking the care provider to allow him to start visiting his father again within 48 hours.
25. Later in September 2025 Mr X wrote to Z asking the care provider to clarify the decision making process for the visiting restrictions.
26. At the start of October 2025 care home and Council representatives had a mediation meeting with Mr X. The meeting agreed Mr X could visit the care home during office hours.
27. The following day Mr X complained to the care provider about the visiting restrictions and the way care home staff had treated him. He asked the care provider to combine this complaint with his escalated stage two complaint.
28. Four days later the care provider issued a stage two complaint response to Mr X. The care provider’s response said it had handled the matter correctly and Mr X had declined meeting offers. The care provider said Mr X’s visiting situation was not yet fully resolved. It said the mediation meeting had agreed increased visiting arrangements.
29. Mr X was not satisfied with the care provider’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X wanted the care provider to acknowledge the allegations against him were false, apologise and lift all visiting restrictions.
30. In January 2026 Mr X complained to the care provider about the ongoing visiting restrictions.
31. In February 2026 the care provider lifted all restrictions on Mr X visiting the care home.
32. In response to my enquiries the care provider said the local Council had agreed it was reasonable to restrict Mr X’s care home visits and it reduced the restrictions when appropriate. It said it had no visiting restriction guidelines for staff except its care home contract and infection control procedure.

My findings

Investigation and decisions to restrict visiting

33. Paragraphs 11 and 13 say the care provider can restrict a persons’ visits to its care home if it considers those visits may pose significant risks to residents, staff and other visitors.
34. Paragraph 11 says the care provider should clearly communicate information about the visiting restrictions to those affected. The care provider telephoned Mr X following the first reported incident in early August 2025 to tell him it was restricting his visiting. The care provider did not write to Mr X to explain the restrictions until nearly four weeks later when it responded to his complaint.
35. Paragraph 11 says the care provider should regularly review any visiting restrictions and remove them as soon as possible. The care provider’s correspondence and telephone calls with Mr X after both incidents make no reference to keeping his visiting restrictions under review. I have seen no evidence the care provider was regularly reviewing Mr X’s visiting restrictions or seeking to remove them as soon as possible. This is not in accordance with the CQC fundamental standards. This distressed Mr X who had no information on when the care provider might review or change the restrictions.
36. Paragraph 12 says the care provider must keep a record of any assessment and decisions on visiting. I have seen copies of correspondence between the care provider, Mr X and the Council about the visiting restrictions and copies of witness statements for the two reported incidents in August 2025. However, I have seen no evidence of record keeping by the care provider showing how the decisions on Mr X’s visiting restrictions were made, who made them and how the care provider assessed the restrictions were lawful, legitimate and proportionate. This is poor record keeping. This is not in accordance with the CQC fundamental standards. This caused uncertainty for Mr X about whether the care provider may have changed the visiting restrictions sooner if it had properly recorded and assessed its decisions about the restrictions.
37. Overall the care provider did not act in accordance with regulation 9A when it implemented Mr X’s visiting restrictions. However, I cannot say the care provider’s decision to apply these restrictions would have been different if it had properly applied regulation 9A.

Guidance for staff on restricting visiting

38. Paragraphs 11 and 13 say the care provider can restrict a persons’ visits to its care home. I have seen no evidence the care provider gave clear guidance to staff on how visiting restrictions should be applied. The care provider dealt with the two reported incidents in August 2025 differently. For the first incident, a care home staff member contacted Mr X by telephone to tell him it had applied visiting restrictions. The care provider did not send Mr X a letter confirming the restrictions and I have seen no evidence the care provider started any investigation before Mr X later made a complaint. For the second incident, a different senior care provider staff member immediately wrote to Mr X about the restrictions, started a formal investigation and offered to meet Mr X to discuss the matter. The care provider’s process for dealing with Mr X’s visiting restrictions was inconsistent. This caused uncertainty for Mr X about whether the care provider would have changed the visiting restrictions sooner if it had properly investigated and reviewed the incidents.

Back to top

Action

39. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X, the care provider has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by its poor communication, failing to review his visiting restrictions and poor record keeping. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
40. The care provider has agreed to take the following action within two months of my decision:
• Provide guidance to its staff on how to make and implement decisions on visiting restrictions. This is to ensure that officers make and implement decisions in a consistent manner and in line with Regulation 9A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008
41. The care provider should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I have completed my investigation. We uphold Mr X’s complaint which caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman