Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint about comments made when the Care Provider assessed Mr Y. This is because there is not a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to pursue the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about what Central England Healthcare (Wolverhampton) Limited (‘the Care Provider’) stated about her father’s conduct at an assessment for dementia care. Mrs X says this caused her and her family additional shock and stress at an already difficult time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X’s father, Mr Y, has dementia. Mrs X asked the Care Provider to assess if it could look after Mr Y in a care home. The Care Provider assessed Mr Y and said it could not meet his needs. Mrs X does not complain about that decision itself. Rather, she complains about the language and approach she says the Care Provider took towards her father. Mrs X states the person who did the assessment said Mr Y had ‘exposed himself,’ which was ‘undignified’ and ‘wouldn’t be fair on other residents.’
5. Mrs X took the allegation that Mr Y had ‘exposed himself’ to refer to indecent exposure. She was surprised as Mr Y had no history of such conduct. Mrs X states it transpired Mr Y had removed his top during the assessment. Mrs X is aggrieved this was apparently described as ‘indecent exposure.’ She also reports Mr Y’s previous care provider states it is not unusual for someone with dementia to remove their top clothing.
6. Mrs X is also unhappy the assessor apparently referred to this conduct as ‘undignified,’ which Mrs X argues is an inappropriate attitude towards people who have dementia.
7. As paragraph 2 explained, we do not necessarily pursue every complaint. We will only pursue a complaint where the alleged fault disadvantaged the person complaining significantly enough to justify devoting time and public money to investigating.
8. I do appreciate the events Mrs X describes caused some upset. However, I do not consider the impact of alleged comments such as these at an assessment is significant enough to warrant further action by the Ombudsman. So I shall not take further action on this complaint.
9. Mrs X suggested my draft decision on this point means I consider it acceptable for individuals and organisations to refer to people with dementia in this way. I do not suggest that. I must consider whether the Care Provider’s alleged fault caused significant enough injustice for us to investigate whether there was fault. I am not persuaded there was a significant enough injustice. So I have not gone on to make any findings about what happened regarding the alleged comments and whether it amounted to fault.
10. Responding to a draft of this decision, Mrs X expressed concern that the alleged comments she complained of might reflect on the Care Provider more widely. The Ombudsman’s role is primarily to consider complaints about what happened to individuals. The Ombudsman is not a regulator or overseer of care providers’ activities generally. We have some power to consider events affecting people who have not complained to us. However, those powers only apply where we are already investigating a complaint from an individual. We are not investigating this complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation. So there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate the Care Provider’s activities more widely.
11. I also note Mrs X states she wants an investigation of how the individual who conducted the assessment is allowed to work with people with dementia. The Ombudsman considers organisations corporately and does not investigate or take action against individuals. So we could not achieve what Mrs X wants. This is another reason why I shall not pursue this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the events complained of did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman