Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the care her late father, Mr C, received from his care provider. This is because Ms B’s complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law. Mr C is now deceased, and the Ombudsman could not provide a remedy to him for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover.

The complaint

1. Ms B says her late father, Mr C, received injuries in his care home and was not properly cared for. Ms B says Mr C was admitted to hospital with a necrotic foul-smelling wound on his heel, described by his care provider as a small carpet burn and grade 2 pressure sores on his bottom. Ms B says this caused distress to Mr C’s family and something needs to be done to stop it happening to other residents. Ms B says there were not enough staff in the home, and there should be repercussions for the staff involved in the delivery of Mr C’s care. Ms B says the Council said it ranked this provider as good.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documentation Ms B and the Council provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it and additional information.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B complains about the care Mr C received from his care provider between October 2018 and April 2019. Ms B complained to the Council in June 2020 concerned there were no consequences for the care provider regarding Mr C’s poor care. Ms B received a response from the Council in July 2020.
6. The Council explained it investigated concerns about Mr C’s care under its responsibility for Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults in 2019. This involved meetings with the care provider, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). It confirmed it retains records of outcomes of safeguarding investigations and does not rank care providers, however it advised Ms B the CQC rates care providers following inspections. It apologised Ms B’s family had been distressed by the incidents and assured her it aim is ‘to ensure that not only are the immediate risks mitigated but that the risk of similar events being able to reoccur is minimised’.
7. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could provide Ms B with a different outcome. The injustice caused to Mr C from the actions of his care provider cannot be remedied as he is now deceased and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate this late complaint.
8. The CQC is the regulator of care providers and as advised, it will inspect the home and rate accordingly. This includes Ms B’s concerns about staffing levels.
9. Ms B says staff should be penalised for the poor care Mr C received. This is a personnel matter and not one the Ombudsman can consider.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Ms B’s complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law. Mr C is now deceased, and the Ombudsman could not provide a remedy to him for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman