Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about care provided to her late uncle, Mr C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response. We could not provide a remedy to Mr C for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover as he is now deceased.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained about the care her late uncle, Mr C, received from his Care Provider. Mrs B says Mr C did not have a wash or his teeth brushed for five weeks when he was placed in the palliative care unit. Mrs B says she was not enabled to have video calls and says the Care Provider did not communicate effectively with her. Mrs B says she was told Mr C was ‘not near to dying’ when he died five hours later. Mrs B says Mr C was left in pain and expressed suicidal thoughts and she had to insist on staff calling his GP. Mrs B says his belongings were returned dirty in bin bags and some items of sentiment were missing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider explained during the COVID-19 pandemic it received unprecedented levels of calls from relatives and apologised for the experiences Mrs B had. It said Mr C was a private man who had capacity and was assisted with strip washing and bathing. It provided dates when records show Mr C was assisted with his personal care.
7. The Care Provider advised Mrs B of the medication Mr C was prescribed and said he was able to indicate to staff when he was in pain and required analgesia.
8. The Care Provider says it searched but was unable to find the missing watch and ring. It said these items were not included in Mr C’s list of belongings and says it will cooperate with any police enquiry.
9. The Care Provider says it discussed Mrs B’s concerns with the individual staff member she identified as not being compassionate and says it will raise concerns about unlaundered clothing with staff during the next meeting. It also says communication and privacy will be discussed at the Clinical Governance Meeting.
10. The Care Provider has explained what it has done to minimise the risk of similar incidences in the future and has apologised for the level of communication Mrs B received from it. We could not achieve any more than this even if we investigated. We could not say what happened to the watch and ring and it will be for Mrs B to make a claim against the Care Provider if she can evidence it is responsible for the loss of these items.
11. Sadly Mr C is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy to him for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered in an investigation. If Mrs B is concerned other residents may be at risk of poor care by the provider she can contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who is the regulator of Care Provider’s. Information about the CQC can be found on the website below:

Care Quality Commission (cqc.org.uk)

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response. We could not provide a remedy to Mr C for any injustice caused to him by fault an investigation might uncover as he is now deceased.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman