Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home preventing him from visiting his late relative before they died. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Home did not allow him to visit his late relative, Mr Y, before he died. As a result, he was not able to say goodbye to his relative. Mr X also complained the Care Home failed to notify him when his relative died. The matter caused him anxiety and distress. He wants the Care Provider to acknowledge it acted with fault and provide him with an apology and a financial remedy for the injustice caused. He also wants the Care Provider to make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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 (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’s relative, Mr Y, was a resident at the Care Home. Another relative held Lasting Power of Attorney for Mr Y’s health and welfare.
6. Mr X said initially, he was able to visit Mr Y at the Care Home. However, towards the end of Mr Y’s life, the Care Home implemented visiting restrictions which meant Mr X was no longer able to visit him. The Care Home informed Mr X that Mr Y’s Lasting Power of Attorney (which was in effect) had requested for visiting restrictions to be in place due to safeguarding concerns they had with Mr X visiting Mr Y.
7. Mr Y died. Mr X said the Care Home failed to notify him when he died. The Care Home said Mr Y’s Lasting Power of Attorney had requested it not to disclose this information to Mr X.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Care Provider said it:
• had a duty to follow instructions set by Mr Y’s Lasting Power of Attorney as they were Mr Y’s legal representative. It could not override their decision;
• also considered Mr Y’s best interests which was its priority; and
• was not its role to be involved in any family disputes.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Home. Mr Y lacked capacity and another relative held a valid Health and Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney. The Care Home had a duty to consider the Lasting Power of Attorney’s request to restrict Mr X’s visits and to not share information with him due to safeguarding concerns they had and said it had also considered Mr Y’s best interests. In the absence of evidence that the Care Home was required to disregard this instruction, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman