Brampton View Limited (19 008 482)

Category : Adult care services > Residential care

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 28 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the care provider cancelled his wife’s planned stay at short notice. There is no fault in the care provider’s decision as it was acting in line with a restriction on admissions put in place by the Care Quality Commission. It informed Mr X of the need to cancel on the same day it was told of the restriction.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the care provider cancelled his wife’s planned respite stay at very short notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
  2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information Mr X provided in his complaint. This included the complaint correspondence. I contacted the care provider to ask for more information about when the Care Quality Commission (CQC) informed it of the restriction it placed on admissions. I sent Mr X a draft copy of my decision and considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X booked a respite stay for his wife, Mrs X, to stay at the care provider’s care home whilst some major work was carried out in their home.
  2. The care provider cancelled Mrs X’s stay on the Friday before her planned stay was due to start the following Monday. This was because CQC had placed restrictions on admissions as a condition on its registration.
  3. The CQC is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers who show they meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services and issues reports on its findings. It also has power to enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.
  4. Mr X complained to the care provider about the late cancellation and the way he was informed of it. He explained it caused them major inconvenience and the disruption caused Mrs X’s condition to worsen. Mr X also complained the call from the care provider cancelling the stay was unprofessional.
  5. The care provider apologised to Mr X for the distress and inconvenience its late cancellation caused. It explained it was only informed of the admissions restriction on the date it contacted him, so it could not have cancelled sooner. It apologised if Mr X felt the telephone call cancelling the stay was not professional. It acknowledged it should not have asked its receptionist to make the call as she was not in possession of the full facts about the restriction that had been put in place.
  6. I contacted the care provider to check when it was first informed CQC had placed restrictions on its admissions. It confirmed it was told the same day it contacted Mr X cancelling the stay.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I will not investigate this complaint because I see no evidence of fault by the care provider in cancelling the stay. It informed Mr X it needed to cancel Mrs X’s stay without delay. I acknowledge this was clearly frustrating and very inconvenient for Mr and Mrs X but the provider was required to comply with the restriction which was put in place by the regulator as a condition on its registration. There was no other action it could take. The care provider has agreed the call could have been handled better and has apologised for this. There is nothing further an Ombudsman investigation could add.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings