Summary: Mrs X complained a Care Provider should not have charged her mother for care when she left the care home because she had given notice at a meeting. She also complained staff shouted at her and bullied her. We found no fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that:
1. A part time nurse gave inaccurate information regarding her mother to the Clinical Commissioning Group, resulting in her mother losing her CHC funding;
2. After she complained she was shouted at and bullied by staff at the Care Home at a meeting.
3. At the meeting she was told to move her mother if she was unhappy with the actions of the care home staff. Mrs X contends she made clear at the meeting that she would be making arrangements to move her mother, and that notice was given on this date. Mrs X complains the Care Provider has refused to accept that meeting as the notice date, and has unfairly charged her mother for care as a result.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. Our investigation only concerns parts b and c of the complaint. The reasons for this are set out the last section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. If we are satisfied with a Care Provider’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided. I asked the Care Provider for information and considered its response to the complaint.
6. Mrs X and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X’s mother was a resident at Worplesdon View Care Home. In October 2019 Mrs X complained about inaccurate information a nurse had provided to the NHS about her mother. I understand this related to her eligibility for Continuing Healthcare (CHC).
8. Mrs X is challenging the NHS’s decision to cease CHC funding for her mother. As a result, the CHC decision itself is not part of our investigation.
9. In January 2020 Mrs X made a complaint to the Care Provider about the way staff treated her. Mrs X stated in a letter to the care home that she wished to give notice that her mother would be leaving shortly. She stated at a meeting in November 2019 she was cornered and bullied by two members of the care home staff. She says the staff were screaming at her. She considered the staff were concerned about their nursing status because they made an error in the information provided about her mother. Mrs X stated a member of staff suggested if she was unhappy with her mother’s care, she could consider other care homes, so she had done this.
10. Mrs X also commented about the CHC decision and inaccuracies in information given to the NHS.
11. Mrs X’s mother moved out of the care home on 4 February 2020.
12. The Regional Director of the Care Provider responded to the complaint in March. They apologised that Mrs X felt the service she received was below her expectations. However, they stated all three staff had been spoken to but none of them recalled what Mrs X described. They stated staff were trying to explain how the assessment and re-assessment of CHC happened and that CHC funding could be removed if a resident stabilised or improved as Mrs X’s mother had. However, the way the situation was handled had clearly caused distress, and for this the Care Provider apologised. They stated the NHS decision to cease CHC was only taken after a visit, assessment and review of her mother’s care plan, not solely on the information provided by a member of the care home staff.
13. In further complaint correspondence in April and May, Mrs X explained she was unhappy at the complaint investigation. She stated staff were not telling the truth and their behaviour had been disgraceful. She noted the apology but she stated the way the situation was handled was not good enough. She also commented further on the member of staff’s actions in relation to the CHC re-assessment. As Mrs X was dissatisfied, she brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.
14. Mrs X told us that the care home charged her care fees incorrectly following the decision to move her mother. Mrs X complained that the care home had effectively given her notice by shouting that she should move her mother if she was unhappy at the meeting in November 2019. She considered that notice had been given from this date as she made it clear at the meeting that she would be moving her mother. As a result, she stated the care home should not charge her for not giving sufficient notice.
15. The Care Provider stated Mrs X gave notice on 21 January. She moved out of the care home on 4 February 2021. As her mother’s contract required 28 days of notice to be given, charges were made for the remaining notice period.
16. The Care Provider sent us a copy of the contract for Mrs X’s mother’s placement. The terms of the contract state that after a permanent resident has been at a home for over a month, they must give 28 days’ written notice for the termination of their contract.
17. We asked the Care Provider whether CCTV footage or other evidence existed to show what happened and what was said by who at the meeting in November. The Care Provider stated that CCTV footage was not reviewed at the time of the incident and footage is only kept for 11 months, so it was not available.
18. The Care Provider confirmed there was a camera that captured the area where the November meeting took place. However, it did not have any audio capability, so it would only have captured images, not what was said.

Analysis

19. I recognise Mrs X was upset following the meeting with care home staff in November. However, Mrs X’s recollection of events and the recollections of the care home staff are different. We have no evidence to show what was said at the meeting or to show whether voices were raised or if staff shouted at Mrs X as she described. I cannot prefer one version of events over another, and given there is no supporting evidence, I do not have grounds to uphold this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
20. I note that during the investigation the Care Provider did interview all staff involved. However, they did not access CCTV footage to see if this helped show what had happened. It would be preferable for an investigation to consider what evidence CCTV could provide. So, I would suggest the Care Provider considers this in relevant cases in future. However, I do not consider it likely the CCTV footage would have been significant in this instance, as it did not have audio capability and would not have established what was said by who.
21. While I understand that Mrs X considered it was clear that she would be moving her mother at the meeting in November, I cannot know what was said. In any event, I found no evidence that notice was given in writing in November. It was not until 21 January that Mrs X gave notice in writing and confirmed her mother would be leaving. The contract requires 28-days’ written notice to be provided. So, I found no fault in the Care Provider making charges for care for the 28-day notice period from 21 January, even though Mrs X’s mother had moved out of the home in early February. The Care Provider’s actions were in accordance with the contract for the care placement.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I found no fault in the Care Provider’s actions which caused Mrs X injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

23. Mrs X is pursuing the CHC issue separately via an appeal process. As a result, we have not considered this element of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman