Summary: We shall not pursue this complaint about what happened during Mr Y’s stay in two of Barchester Healthcare’s (the Care Provider’s) care homes. This is because the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y about what happened when Mrs Y’s husband Mr Y spent time in the Care Provider’s residential care. Mr X says this resulted in Mr Y being able to get out unsupervised and in distress to Mrs Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and copy correspondence from the Care Provider. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y. Mrs Y’s husband, Mr Y, had health problems including dementia and could not safely go out alone. He lived with his wife Mrs Y. In March 2018, Mrs Y arranged for Mr Y to stay in one of the Care Provider’s care homes while she had medical treatment. Mr X was involved at the time as a family friend of Mr and Mrs Y.
6. The complaint centres on events during Mr Y’s two-week stay with the Care Provider. The key events are that Mr Y was able to get out of the first care home and was found away by the police. The Care Provider then said the first care home could not meet Mr Y’s needs, so arranged for him to move to another of its homes. Mr Y got out of that home too and was found nearby. Mrs Y is dissatisfied these events could have happened and with related matters regarding the Care Provider’s handling of the situation. Sadly, Mr Y died in late 2019.
7. Mr X and Mrs Y knew what had happened in March 2018. They complained to the Ombudsman nearly three years later, in February 2021. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
8. Mr X complained to the Care Provider at the time. On 12 June 2018 the Care Provider sent Mr X details of the three stages of its complaints procedure and of his right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. So Mr X knew about those points then.
9. On 4 October 2018 the Care Provider sent Mr X its response to his stage 2 complaint, which explained how he could go to the final stage of its complaints procedure if he was dissatisfied. However, Mr X did not go promptly to stage 3. He told me he kept corresponding with the Care Provider in the hope of resolving the complaint. However, I am not persuaded it was reasonable to engage in repeated correspondence over a lengthy period without going promptly to the next stage of the complaints procedure.
10. Mr X says there were some delays by the Care Provider but I consider there were lengthier gaps in Mr X pursuing the matter. For example, he did not contact the Care Provider from November 2018 to May 2019, or again from May 2019 to April 2020. The Care Provider told Mr X in June 2020 that he could complain to the Ombudsman, which Mr X did over six months later (though I appreciate the COVID-19 situation might have had some impact on that last period).
11. Mr X was also contacting the local authority in 2019 and 2020, but I do not consider that was good reason for not continuing to pursue the complaint with the Care Provider. Nor was it a good reason for such a long delay coming to us.
12. Mr X told me he had to liaise with Mrs Y about the complaint, which necessarily took some time, especially when Mrs Y was dealing with Mr Y’s death. I understand that and sympathise. However, I note Mr Y died almost two years after March 2018, well outside the 12-month timescale paragraph 2 described.
13. In all the circumstances, I consider Mr X could reasonably have complained to us within, or perhaps just outside, 12 months of March 2018. Overall, I do not consider there are good enough reasons to accept this late complaint now.
14. There were some difficulties with the Care Provider’s complaint-handling. Again, much of that happened over 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman, so my argument above applies here. Also, as paragraph 3 explained, it would be disproportionate to look into the Council’s complaint-handling where we are not investigating the underlying substantive matter.
15. Mr X said he wanted reassurance that what happened to Mr Y would not happen to anyone else. That is a more general point, going beyond what happened in Mr Y’s two weeks with the Care Provider. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate or oversee the Care Provider’s activities generally. Mr X has reported his concerns to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which regulates care homes. It is for the CQC to decide what, if any, action to take. The Care Provider’s practice might have moved on in the three years since Mr Y’s experience. For these reasons I shall not pursue this aspect of the complaint either.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman