Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care in a supported living residence. This is because there is nothing that further investigation could add to the previous investigations by the Care Provider and the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs D, says that:
• A bucket and mop which had been used to clean up urine was left in her mother, (M)’s apartment without cleaning them;
• The care provider gave her incorrect information about whether M had been taking antibiotics;
• The care provider was using male carers to shower M without proper consent;
• The general standard of care for M was poor; and
• Her complaint was not properly considered by the care provider.

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 it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D and by the Council. I have also sent Mrs D a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs D’s mother, M, was a resident at a supported living residence. On one occasion when Mrs D visited her, there was evidence of urine being mopped up, but the dirty mop and bucket being left in the bathroom without being rinsed, leaving the apartment smelling unpleasant.
5. Mrs D complained about the incident to the Care Provider. She was unhappy with the response as it did not adequately explain what had happened, and it stated, incorrectly, that M had been on antibiotics for a urinary tract infection.
6. Mrs D went through three stages of the care provider’s complaint procedures, but remained dissatisfied, despite an admission that the information regarding antibiotics was an error, and that the urine bucket and mop should have been properly dealt with. She complained to the Council, which answered her remaining concerns and questions about the incident and about the deficiencies in the complaint handling.
7. Mrs D also complained that M was being given a shower on a daily basis by male carers, which she regarded as inappropriate and unacceptable to M. The Council’s response says that M gave her consent for this to happen when she first moved to the residence, when she had capacity to make this decision. It further says that the agreement has been updated. M is showered by female carers, and a male would only be used on an occasional basis if no female was available.
8. Mrs D further complained about general issues relating to M’s care, but the Council said that at the time, M had capacity to make certain decisions for herself, and to complaint if she wished. Although Mrs D does not accept this, further investigation by the LGSCO would not now be able to find evidence either way.
9. Although Mrs D has now brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, I do not propose to investigate it, as there is nothing that I could add to the previous responses.

Back to top

Final decision

10. Subject to any comments Mrs D might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the previous investigations by the care provider and the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman