Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the way she and her late father, Mr C, were treated by his care provider. This is because any injustice caused to Mr C from the actions of his care provider cannot be remedied now, and, although Mrs B feels she has not received an appropriate remedy for the care provider’s failings, the care provider reimbursed Mr C for care he did not receive in 2019 and Mrs B could have come to us before now if she felt this was not an appropriate remedy. There is no good reason to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint now.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained to her late father’s, Mr C’s care provider in 2018 and 2019 about the lack of care and support he received. Although the care provider reimbursed Mr C with £6000, it decided in January 2020 it could not manage the expectations of Mr C’s family and gave him Notice to Quit. Mrs B says she and her family only expected the standards set by the provider which were never delivered. Mrs B was very upset and distressed to receive notification to move Mr C from his home when he was dying and sadly he died two days after receiving the letter. Mrs B says Mr C’s care was inadequate and he paid for care he did not receive.

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 care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mrs B and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B says she formally complained to Mr C’s care provider in 2018 but did not receive a response. She says she withheld 50% of the fees and complained again in 2019. Mrs B said Mr C should receive a reduction in the monthly amount of his care fees because he received poor care and she was providing much of the care he needed. The care provider acknowledged Mr C did not receive the care he should have and offered to pay £6000 and improve services and communication. Mrs B initially declined the offer and said she wanted a reduction in the monthly amount of his care fees. The care provider advised Mrs B in April 2019 that it would not reduce the fees further, agreed not to increase the fees in the future and advised it was working on ensuring care in the home was satisfactory. Mrs B agreed without prejudice to accept the £6000 in May 2019. The care provider said it could meet Mr C’s needs but said it would respect Mrs B’s decision if she wanted to move him to a different care home if she felt she could not trust it to care for Mr C.
5. Mrs B said Mr C should have a reduction in his monthly care fees. The care provider responded in December 2019. It reiterated it would not reduce the fees further and understood if Mrs B decided she wanted to move Mr C to a different home.
6. The care provider explained it was for Mrs B to move Mr C to a different home if she felt she could not trust the care provider or wanted to pay less for his care than his care provider charged. Mrs B could have come to the Ombudsman in April or December 2019 if she believed the £6000 paid by the care provider did not remedy the injustice caused to her or Mr C. We cannot remedy any injustice caused to Mr C now as he is deceased and we could not say the care provider should have reduced his monthly fees. We will not investigate this late complaint.
7. The care provider wrote to Mrs B in January 2020. It said regrettably, despite the best efforts on both sides, it felt the necessary trust between them had broken down, and in the best interest of all, especially Mr C, it was appropriate Mrs B find an alternative care provision for him. It said under section 10.1.E of the resident contract it was giving 28 days’ notice for the following reason:

We believe that the level of trust (between ourselves and yourself) necessary to ensure the wellbeing of your father and enhance his life experience is no longer evident. We believe this is impacting on the service we provide to [Mr C], other residents and our employees and we are not willing to let this happen.

8. Mrs B could have contacted the Council’s safeguarding team if she was concerned Mr C should not be moved from his care home but in this case it was not necessary. Sadly Mr C died two days later without knowing of the care provider’s decision to terminate his contract. While Mr C was not caused any injustice from the actions of his care provider, Mrs B says she was and remains upset and distressed by the care provider’s decision to terminate her father’s care.
9. We cannot tell care provider’s not to give notice when it has explained the reasons and is in line with the contract. In addition, in this case, the decision to terminate Mr C’s placement was not implemented so no injustice was caused to Mr C.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because any injustice caused to Mr C from the actions of his care provider cannot be remedied now, and, although Mrs B feels she has not received an appropriate remedy for the care provider’s failings, the care provider reimbursed Mr C for care he did not receive in 2019 and Mrs B could have come to us before now if she felt this was not an appropriate remedy. There is no good reason to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman