Summary: Mr X complained, in 2019, the care home failed to properly care for his late mother Mrs Y’s hearing which made her deafness worse. We have discontinued the investigation because the complaint is late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating this matter now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained, in 2019, the care home failed to properly care for his late mother Mrs Y’s hearing which made her deafness worse. He says this caused Mrs Y and the family distress and the impact on her hearing made her dementia worse. In addition, he says the care home failed to respond to his complaint about this.
2. Mr X wants a refund of 50% of the care fees paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

4. 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 an adult social care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X, the Local Government Act 1974 which sets out our jurisdiction and our Guidance on Remedies.
6. I gave Mr X and the care provider the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The following is a summary of key background events.
8. Mrs Y had hearing difficulties and dementia.
9. In late January 2019 Mrs Y moved to care home A following a stay in hospital. This was privately funded.
10. In February 2019 Mrs Y saw an audiologist regarding her hearing aids. Mr X says they recommended she had the wax removed from her ears as this impacted upon the effectiveness of the hearing aids.
11. In March 2019 a doctor from the local mental health team visited Mrs Y and carried out a review at the care home. They noted the care home had no concerns and Mrs Y’s only problem was the hearing impairment and that she was currently waiting for a hearing aid. At a further review in June 2019 the doctor noted Mrs Y remained settled but was hard of hearing.
12. In June 2019 Mr X employed a private company to remove Mrs Y’s earwax.
13. Mr X emailed the care provider in early October 2019 requesting an explanation as to why it took four months to remove the wax from his mother’s ear when it prolonged her deafness. He also raised concerns that Mrs Y’s hearing aid batteries were often flat. The care provider responded that they would look into the query. Mr X says he never received a response. In October 2019 Mrs Y moved to a different care home.
14. In November 2019 Mr X raised his concerns with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the statutory regulator of care services. In an email to Mr X the CQC said ‘I have recorded your concerns and they will be used to inform planning of the next inspection’.
15. In December 2019 Mr X complained to us about the care provider. Due to our document retention policy we no longer have the case documents. However, the case history records show that in January 2020 the complaint was allocated to an investigator to consider. The investigator emailed Mr X to request some information. This appear to be around consent and whether he had power of attorney to act on his mother’s behalf. Mr X responded on 3 February 2020 that he had not made a complaint to us and so we closed the complaint, as requested by the complainant.
16. Mrs Y died in spring 2020.
17. In December 2020 Mr X again complained to us about the actions of the care provider.

Findings

18. Section 34D of the Local Government Act 1974 says the permitted period to complain to the Ombudsman is 12 months beginning on the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matter. We may disapply this requirement if we have good reasons to do so. Mr X’s concerns relate to events between February 2019, when Mrs X saw an audiologist and June 2019, when the earwax was removed. Even if I were to consider issues relating to her hearing aid, Mrs Y left the care home in October 2019.
19. Our records show Mr X originally complained to us in December 2019 about the care home but soon after chose not to continue with the complaint. Mr X complained to us again in late 2020 but given the time that has passed since Mrs Y was resident at the care home, I see no good reason to investigate this matter now.
20. In addition, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable, even if I were to agree to investigate the complaint to see if there was fault. This is because when we find fault in our investigations, we look to remedy any injustice caused by the fault. There must be a clear link between the fault and the personal injustice to the complainant. Our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in a way a court can.
21. Mr X is seeking a refund of care fees but that remedy does not stem directly from any injustice caused. Mrs Y lived in the care home where she received 24 hour care and so was expected to pay for that care.
22. Mr X believes Mrs Y was caused harm to her hearing and dementia by the care provider’s actions. Such injustice cannot generally be remedied by a payment. If we were to find Mrs Y was caused harm as a result of fault by the care provider, we would look to recommend a modest symbolic payment to Mrs Y to acknowledge the impact of the fault. Sadly, however, Mrs Y has since died and so we would not be able to remedy any distress or harm caused to her by any failings in care. Therefore, even if I were to investigate further, I could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
23. As well as personal remedies, if we go on to find fault, we can also seek to make recommendations for service improvements to prevent similar issues happening again. However, Mr X has already raised his concerns with the CQC. The CQC, as the statutory regulator of care services, inspects care providers and issues reports on its findings. The CQC told Mr X it had noted his concerns which it would use to inform planning for future inspections. So further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve any wider outcomes than those the CQC would identify through their inspection processes.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have discontinued the investigation as the complaint is late and there is no worthwhile outcome I could achieve by further investigation of the complaint now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman