Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care at a care home, and the care home’s actions when the complainant’s mother became seriously ill. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s previous investigation or provide a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs C, says that the Care Home where her mother lived provided poor quality care, and caused delay in her hospitalisation when she became seriously ill.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered the information provided by Mrs C and by the Council. I have also sent Mrs C a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs C’s mother resided at X Care Home where Mrs C says the quality of care was poor. She further says that when her mother became seriously ill, the Care Home handled the matter badly and caused delay in her going into hospital. Mrs C believes this contributed to her mother’s death.
5. Mrs C complained about the matter to the Care Home and to the Council. Following its Stage one response, which did not find fault, Mrs C remained dissatisfied and the Council considered the complaint at Stage 2.
6. The outcome of the Stage two investigation was that the Council apologised for its Stage one response and said a safeguarding enquiry should have been initiated. It then carried out a safeguarding enquiry which encompassed the issues that Mrs C had raised previously.
7. The safeguarding report was produced in September 2020. It concluded that there was one incident that should be classed as neglect, but that it was quickly rectified. Otherwise there were minor findings, but nothing to support Mrs C’s allegations that the Care Home caused Mrs M’s death through delay in hospitalisation.
8. Mrs C says that Mrs M’s family do not accept the findings, and refuse to accept that the nurse they hold responsible has not been tracked down and questioned about what they believe to be faults in her actions. This is not something that we would do. We consider complaints against the Council as a corporate body, not against individuals. As a corporate body, the Council acted appropriately in carrying out a safeguarding investigation.
9. Mrs C has asked the LGSCO to investigate now, but I do not propose to do so. This is because there is nothing in the complaint made to us that has not already been considered by the safeguarding investigation. Additionally, we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s investigation at this stage as we have no more information available to us than the Council had.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s previous investigation or provide a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman