Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way his mother’s, Mrs C’s, care provider has communicated with him. This is because the actions of Mrs C’s care provider have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Care provider has apologised for comments made by staff Mr B feels are disrespectful, and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained to his mother’s, Mrs C’s care provider when it contacted him during the night and left a voicemail message. Mr B says staff were rude and feels the care provider has not taken his complaint seriously. Mr B says Mrs C’s care provider has not obeyed its legal position about communication with him. Mr B says he should not be called about incidences he has no control over and cannot do anything about. Mr B says the care provider should admit they were wrong and apologise for the distress caused to him to restore his trust in it.

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:

• the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained about the way Mrs C’s care provider communicated with him. In particular contacting him at night following an incident he could do nothing about.
5. The care provider says staff were following the homes procedures to contact next of kin following an incident. It said it had now recorded in Mrs C’s care plan Mr B’s wishes to be contacted between 10am and 6 pm regarding any non-emergencies and noted Mr B’s confirmation that it will support the care providers actions about ‘any medical treatment it makes in real time until it can involve him’.
6. Mr B says staff were rude to him when he queried being contacted during the night when the incident was over and he could not do anything about it. The care provider says the staff member on duty acknowledged they said they had never come across anyone not wanting to be informed about their mother’s care before, and felt as Mr B is Mrs C’s attorney, they were reporting a serious incident which was reported as a safeguarding matter and notified to the CQC. The care provider confirmed the member of staff was following procedure in contacting Mr B. It acknowledged it could have been handled better and apologised to Mr B explaining the comments were not intended to be disrespectful. The care provider confirmed it now has the timeframes recorded for non-urgent communication with Mr B. The care provider explained the Council has agreed, as the Relevant Persons Representative for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation, to act as Mrs C’s advocate in the future.
7. The care provider has explained why it contacted Mr B at night in accordance with its policies and procedures, and any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not provide him with a different explanation or outcome. Mr B has advised the care provider of the times it should contact him in a non-emergency situation. This has now been recorded on Mrs C’s care records so he should not be contacted outside of those hours unless it is an emergency. The care provider has apologised that Mr B felt staff were rude and acknowledged this could have been handled better. We are satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to Mr B by the comments.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the actions of Mrs C’s care provider have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman