Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how a care home looked after Mr Y and how it handled its communication with Mr X. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome. Nor should we investigate Mr X’s allegation the Care Home defamed him. This is a matter for the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains on behalf of himself and his father, Mr Y, about a Care Home owned by Drumconner Limited (the Care Home). Mr X questions if it could have done more to prevent Mr Y’s death.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Care Home communicated with him. He says it:

• failed to respond to his complaints;
• was rude and insensitive in its communication with him; and
• wrongly alleged he made threats and reported him to the Police.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I have considered the Care Home’s responses to his complaint. I also spoke with Mr X as part of my assessment. I also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr Y was a resident in the Care Home and paid for his own care. He had capacity to decide his care needs, but his son, Mr X, looked after his financial matters. In 2019 Mr Y became unwell and was taken to hospital where he died a week later.
7. Mr X says he spoke to a resident at the Care Home, who told him about her concerns for Mr Y’s health and behaviour before he was taken to hospital. Because of this Mr X says he wrote to the Care Home asking about the standard of care Mr Y received in the days before he was hospitalised. He also complained about its failure to give assurances that Mr Y could stay in the Care Home if his funds ran out. He says it was insensitive and rude in how it communicated with him. Mr X says he did not receive a response and complained to the Care Home again.
8. After Mr X contacted us, the Care home responded to his complaint. It said:

• it had closely monitored Mr Y in the week before his hospital admission;
• a nurse assessed his health and increased his medication;
• it called Mr Y’s GP who prescribed new medication;
• it called an ambulance for Mr Y as his health did not improve; and
• it apologised to Mr X for failing to discuss financial concerns with him.

9. Mr X was not happy with the Care Home’s response and complained again. In response the Care Home told Mr X it did not have a record of his first complaint. It explained:

• how it monitors its staffing levels and the care provided to residents;
• it did not find any concerns about its care for Mr Y;
• Mr Y’s GP did not raise any concerns about his care; and
• why it could not provide assurances for Mr Y’s stay in the Care Home if his funds ran out. It apologised again for its handling of this matter and insensitive communication by its staff.

10. Mr X remained unhappy and complained again but did not get a response. Mr X called the Care Home. He says it reported him to the Police for making threats. He denies making threats and says the Care Home’s actions amount to defamation.

Assessment

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.
12. The Care Home explained how it looked after Mr Y in the week before his admission to hospital. It observed his health and asked for support from a nurse and his GP as his health did not improve. Neither Mr Y’s GP nor the hospital raised concerns about Mr Y’s care before his death. So, it seems unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
13. I understand Mr X’s frustration at not receiving a response to his first complaint. However, the Care Home said it does not have record of this complaint and so could not respond to it. It did respond to Mr X’s later complaints and addressed each of them in detail. It also apologised to Mr X for how it handled his concerns about the care home fees. The Care Home’s apologies are a suitable remedy and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
14. I also understand Mr X is unhappy the Care Home did not respond to his final complaint. However, it had already responded to his complaints. The next step to escalate the matter was for Mr Y to complain to us.
15. Finally, Mr X said the Care Home’s actions to report him to the Police amounts to defamation. Such matters are for the courts and it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter there.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint about how a care home looked after Mr Y and how it handled its communication with Mr X. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome. Nor should we investigate Mr X’s allegation the Care Home defamed him. This is a matter for the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman