Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about care provided to his son, Mr C, between 2014 and 2017. This is because any injustice caused to Mr C from the actions of his Care Provider during this time has been remedied during a previous Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that his son, Mr C was neglected by his Care Provider between 2014 and 2017. Mr B says Mr C’s Care Provider:
• failed to provide services as described in their service user guide and failed to conform to the BABICM code of practice;
• there were inaccuracies in reports and records. One report provided an inaccurate and misleading view of Mr C’s condition and over emphasised his need for support;
• attempted to exclude him from having an overview of services provided, failed to provide documentation and used the Mental Capacity Act to prevent him accessing information;
• failed to provide structured rehabilitation programs and provided no method of setting goals or assessing progress;
• the initial case manager was unsuitable;
• case managers failed to supervise support workers to ensure they did not increase Mr C’s dependence on their support;
• case managers failed to act on Mr C’s wishes;
• case managers showed a lack of understanding of mental health issues and the effects of acquired brain injury;
• failed to provide a social and domestic structure to enable Mr C to develop his creative abilities and build a social network when he moved; and failed to complete written risk assessments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B came to the Ombudsman in 2016/17 and asked him to consider his complaint about care provided to his son. At that time the Ombudsman discontinued his investigations on the basis the Council should consider Mr C’s capacity and whether he wanted Mr B to act on his behalf.
6. The Ombudsman considered a complaint about the Council in November 2020 and exercised discretion to investigate matters dating back to 2017. We found fault with the way the Council reached Best Interests Decisions and recommended it provide a remedy to Mr C for the missed opportunities and the time and trouble incurred in pursuing a complaint. We also found fault that the Council had wrongly identified that Mr C was self-funding his own care and said that it should have commissioned Mr C’s social care needs. During the investigation the Council realised its error and refunded Mr C some of the money he paid for his care.
7. Mr B now wants the Ombudsman to investigate the Care Provider regarding the care it provided dating back to 2014. However, the Ombudsman’s later investigation found the Council should have been responsible for arranging Mr C’s care and provided a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr C for the loss of service as a result of its failings. There is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate now.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because any injustice caused to Mr C because of the Council’s actions has been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman