Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided in a residential care home. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome or add anything further to the Care Provider’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss N, says that:
• The quality of care provided for her uncle, U, at the Home was poor;
• The Care Home allowed U to fall, resulting in reduced mobility and independence June 18;
• The Care Home tried to prevent Miss N from removing U from the care home; and
• It did not deal with Miss N’s complaints while the PA was at the home, and has still not responded properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))
3. 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 Body in Jurisdiction has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Miss N and by the Care Provider. I have also sent Miss N a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss N’s uncle was resident at a care home run by the Care Provider. Miss N says that while U was there, the quality of the care provided was poor. In particular she says that U was not supported to wash properly, resulting in him appearing dirty and dishevelled, and that the staff at the Home did not make adequate provision for him to go outside and smoke when he wanted a cigarette.
6. The Care Provider, in its response, has partially upheld the complaint about supporting U to wash properly. It has apologised and committed to reviewing staff deployment to ensure that care needs are met.
7. It did not uphold the second issue. It said that although staff were willing to accompany him outside so that he could smoke, they could not always do so, if they were involved in carrying out care for other residents. There is nothing that further investigation could add to these responses.
8. Miss N also complains that staff at the Home allowed U to fall, in June 2018, and that this resulted in a permanent loss of mobility and independence. I will not consider this issue as the complaint is made late. We cannot investigate complaints about events that the complainant was aware of more than 12 months previously, unless there are good reasons to do so. In this case I have seen no good reasons. Miss N did not complain to the Care Provider until more than 12 months after the fall, so although the complaint response was delayed, I cannot hold the Care Provider responsible for all of the delay.
9. Miss N additionally complains that staff at the Home tried to prevent her from removing U from the home. This led to significant conflict and a physical altercation as she tried to take him from the Home. The Care Provider’s response says that although Miss N said that U had told her he wanted to leave the Home and go with her, he had subsequently told staff at the Home that he wanted to remain there. As he had capacity to decide where he wanted to live, staff therefore felt they should prevent Miss N from removing him on safeguarding grounds.
10. The response concludes that staff acted professionally. Miss N disagrees, but as I am unable to reconcile the conflicting views of exactly what happens, I cannot make a finding on this issue.
11. Finally, Miss N says that the Care Provider did not deal properly with her complaint, made in January 2020. In October 2020 when Miss N approached the LGSCO she had yet to receive a response.
12. The Care Provider finally responded in November 2020. It acknowledged it was at fault for the delay and apologised. There is nothing that further investigation could add to this response.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I could not achieve a worthwhile outcome or add to the Care Provider’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman