Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home excluding him from meetings in relation to his mother who is a resident. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Home failed to invite him to meetings in relation to his mother, who is a resident. The matter caused him distress and uncertainty as he believes his mother’s best interests were not properly safeguarded. He wants the Care Home to acknowledge it acted with fault and provide him with an apology. He also wants the Care Home to ensure it includes him in such meetings.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said in mid-2025, two meetings took place in relation to his mother and whether she would be eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding (CHC). Mr X has joint Lasting Power of Attorney with his sister for their mother’s health and welfare. Mr X said his sister attended the meetings however, he did not because the Care Home failed to inform him and invite him to attend.
6. The Care Provider considered Mr X’s complaint and said it was not responsible for arranging the meetings. It said the Care Home was asked to attend as a participant only to provide information about Mr X’s mother’s care and support needs. The Care Provider added it was not the role of the Care Home to question any representation of Mr X’s mother.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider. Responsibility for arranging CHC meetings, including notifying and inviting the relevant representatives, rests with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). We therefore consider it would be unreasonable to hold the Care Home responsible for Mr X not being invited to the meetings. If Mr X remains concerned about his involvement in the CHC process, it would be appropriate for him to raise these concerns with the local ICB.
8. As we are not investigating the substantive matter Mr X complains of, we will not consider the Care Provider’s handling of his complaint as a separate issue. We do not generally consider it a proportionate use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation. In any event, the Care Provider apologised to Mr X for its poor complaint handling and offered him £500 in recognition of any injustice caused. This is more than we would recommend in line with our Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman