Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider restricting Miss X’s visits to a care home as further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that she was unreasonably banned from visiting her friend in a care home, after Miss X queried why her friend was not fed.
2. Miss X reports not being able to see her friend before they died and suffered distress. She wants an investigation in to what happened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X which includes the care provider’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says she was visiting her friend and discovered her friend was not provided with a meal. Miss X says she queried this to care home staff. Miss X says her friend was then given food. Miss X says a member of staff then responded to her confrontationally including threatening to call the police and have her removed from the care home.
7. Miss X says she was escorted off the premises and informed she was banned. She says she has not been given an adequate explanation, nor has she been involved in any investigation into the reasons for the ban.
8. In summary, the care home says the ban was issued to safeguard residents and staff. It says the decision was taken after checking with Miss X’s legal representative plus the Council. They supported the decision and agreed the care home’s actions were proportionate. It said Miss X’s friend lacked capacity to decide on who visits them, so the decision was taken in their best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. And, as Miss X was not her friend’s attorney nor next of kin, it could not share additional information with her.
9. We will not investigate as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. I note Miss X was emailed by the care home to inform her of the ban. We could not now ask the care home to overturn a decision care professionals took in the best interests of Miss X’s friend. Further, Miss X did not hold any legal authority to represent her friend, and the care home would not be permitted to disclose any best interest’s decision making due to the General Data Protection Regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman