Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council failing to investigate properly her report that a care home manager murdered her late mother (Mrs X). She also raises concerns about errors in the minutes of the safeguarding meetings. We will not investigate because we are unlikely to be able to add anything more to the Council’s safeguarding, complaints, and data protection investigations. Further, the Information Commissioner is the most suitable agency to deal with Miss Y’s concerns about inaccurate records. And we cannot achieve the outcomes requested of compensation for negligence in Mrs X’s care and harm caused to Miss Y.

The complaint

1. Miss Y alleges a care home manager ‘murdered’ Mrs X by not caring for her properly.
2. Miss Y says the Council then excluded her from two safeguarding meetings and failed to correct errors in the minutes of the meetings.
3. Miss Y says the Council should have found that Mrs X suffered negligence for which compensation should be paid. And, that Miss Y should be compensated for the distress and depression caused to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization;
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants;
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s responses.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y raises matters relating to her late mother’s care at a care home.
8. The Council says it started a safeguarding investigation after Mrs X was admitted to hospital and the hospital raised concerns about Mrs X’s (pressure sore) care.

9. Miss Y complained to the Council about its safeguarding investigation as she says she was not included in the meetings held in 2019. Or provided with the minutes after the meetings. When she did get hold of the minutes through a subject access request, she says she found them to be full of inaccuracies and omissions.
10. In March 2021, the Council’s data protection officer answered Miss Y’s thirteen-page letter complaining about the minutes of the safeguarding meetings. The officer answered Miss Y’s detailed concerns paragraph by paragraph, differentiating where she was complaining about the conduct of the meeting, where the Council considered the records were accurate or not. In response to some of Miss Y’s points the Council said it would hold her letter on the minutes file to reflect her views.
11. Overall, the Council found one factual error in the minutes of one meeting and said it would add a note to correct this. It stressed that Miss Y’s disagreement with comments made at the meetings did not mean they were inaccurate. It also advised Miss Y of her right to complain to the Information Commissioner if she remained unhappy with its response and offer to rectify the data it held.
12. At the same time, the Council sent its final complaint response to Miss Y. It explained the purpose of the safeguarding investigation was to establish fact, identify risk and then seek to mitigate those risks where possible. Its complaint investigation concluded:

• Miss Y was not excluded from the safeguarding investigation meetings as she was invited to one but declined as she did not want to the attend a meeting where care home staff would be attending. The Council said Miss Y was invited to the second meeting but could not attend. But overall, it found no injustice was caused to Miss Y by not attending these meetings as staff met with her separately and she was invited to send in written representations.
• The Council did find concerns with the treatment of her mother’s pressure sores by the district nursing team (NHS) attending the care home date. The local NHS Trust had completed a Serious Incident Investigation. This had been brought to Miss Y’s attention who was noted as satisfied with the ‘lessons learnt’.
• The Council admitted there may have been an issue by Mrs. X’s needs changing from the time of the original needs assessment by the time she moved into the care home in question. However, the Council said ultimately the care home had responsibility to consider if it could meet her mother’s needs. It said an officer involved had been reflecting in the supervision process to ensure lessons were learnt on this part.
• Miss Y was informed of the outcome the care home manager had decided to close the home in 2019.
• The Council explained it could not investigate Miss Y’s view the care home manager had murdered Mrs. X as that was a criminal matter for the Police. It also advised that unexplained deaths were investigated by the coroner.
• Finally, it said it could not pay her compensation as it had not found any evidence of unfair practices. But Miss Y was advised she had the right to send in a ‘properly articulated letter of claim’ that it could forward to its insurers.

13. While I recognise Miss Y’s continuing dissatisfaction about the conclusions reached by the safeguarding unit and the accuracy of the investigation paperwork, we are unlikely to achieve anything more or worthwhile by investigating.
14. Miss Y believes a different safeguarding investigation could have persuaded the Police to act against the care home manager, but this is simply not the case. The Police’s role here is independent of any Council’s findings.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s responses, make a different finding if we investigated or achieve the outcomes requested. Further, the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider the complaints about inaccurate data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman