Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding care and support provided to her late mother, Mrs C. This is because we cannot remedy any injustice caused to Mrs C from the Council’s actions and it is unlikely any further investigation could provide a different response to that Ms B has received.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained to the Council about the care and support her late mother, Mrs C received. Ms B says:

• the Council did not review Mrs C’s care needs for two years;
• the care provider was unaware social workers were involved in Mrs C’s care;
• there was a lack of communication with the family;
• Mrs C’s views were not sought regarding a sexual assault she suffered and her family were not given an outcome or closure regarding the investigation into the sexual assault.
• Mrs C was denied access to personal funds during a safeguarding investigation into her finances. Ms B says Mrs C was unkempt, her hair was long and nails unclean. In addition Mrs C was dressed in other residents clothing.

2. Ms B says Mrs C was not treated with dignity or respect, and her family did not know what her care needs were and were unable to ensure they were being met. Ms B wants a full investigation into what happened to Mrs C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the concerns with Ms B and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B complained about the care and support provided to Mrs C and communication with the family.
6. Ms B says the Council did not review Mrs C’s care needs for two years, Mrs C was unkempt, did not have access to personal funds to be able to pay for her hair to be cut or her nails maintained, was dressed in other residents clothing and the Council had failed to seek Mrs C’s views and wishes following an investigation into a sexual assault.
7. The Council says Mrs C’s care needs were reviewed in May 2017, June 2018 and April 2019. It says Ms B contributed to the review process.
8. The Council says it was not aware Mrs C did not have access to funds. The Office of the Public Guardian decided to remove Ms B as Mrs C’s Attorney in 2018 and solicitors were instructed to act on Mrs C’s behalf regarding her finances. It said in the first instance, the care provider or Ms B should have contacted the solicitors with responsibility for Mrs C’s finances if they were concerned Mrs C did not have funds for personal items or her personal funds required replenishing. The Council says if it knew of the difficulties at the time it would have advised Ms B to do this and would have followed it up if no response was received.
9. The Council says it investigated Ms B’s concerns about Mrs C being unkempt and dressed in other residents clothes. It said it could find no record of these incidences being reported, but apologised Ms B had experienced these issues.
10. The Council acknowledged it did not offer ongoing support to Mrs C following a safeguarding investigation into a sexual assault. It said:

‘Although a risk assessment was put in place to minimise the risk to your mother going forwards, I would expect that consideration would have been given to the impact of the incident on your mother, and what support might be required, and am disappointed that in your mother’s case we did not offer an appropriate after-care service.

Following the appointment of a Consultant Social Worker in 2019, considerable work has been undertaken to develop our practice with regards safeguarding and the need to ensure MSP is at the centre of practice. Further messaging will be shared with all teams following my findings to ensure that consideration for the victim is considered as a priority when dealing with traumatic situations in the future’.

11. We will not investigate this complaint. Sadly Mrs C is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy to her for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover.
12. Ms B says she is unhappy with the way she has been treated by the Council. The Council has apologised Ms B felt she was intimidated and was left feeling anxious about visiting Mrs C following the referral to the OPG. The Council acknowledged this was a difficult time for Ms B and explained it expects its staff to be courteous and professional. It apologised Ms B felt this was not the case. It says it spoke to staff involved who also apologised if Ms B felt they were dominating and patronising and said this was not the intention.
13. We could not make a finding on how a person is made to feel. The Council has apologised Ms B felt that way and we could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot remedy any injustice caused to Mrs C from the Council’s actions and it is unlikely any further investigation could provide a different response to that Ms B has received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman