Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about his father’s, Mr C’s Care Provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained his father’s, Mr C’s Care Provider, did not ensure he had regular water tablets, did not communicate properly with the family and referred to Mr C as she. Mr B complains Mr C was not provided with a chiropodist or barber during the 10 months he lived in the home despite asking the Care Provider to arrange this for him. Mr B says family members had to cut his nails and hair for him so he could retain his dignity and respect. Mr B says his father and other residents did not have access to the garden, were never encouraged or taken to sit in the garden and says despite advertising the garden in its literature, it is unsafe for residents in its current state. Mr B says because of the poor care Mr C received from his Care Provider he moved him to a different home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider.

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

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. The Care Provider acknowledged there was some confusion around Mr B’s understanding of the water tablets as a nurse had informed him Mr C had not been prescribed them. The Care Provider explained Mr C had been prescribed a short course of tablets in June which were administered to him. It apologised to Mr B for miscommunication and explained although the staff member referred to Mr C as she, she was talking about Mr C. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to this or make a different finding.
6. Mr B says he continually raised concerns about Mr C’s hair and nails and also raised concerns about him not being encouraged to sit in the garden, which he says is not fit for purpose. Although Mr B may have raised these concerns at the time, he has not formally complained about them to the Care Provider. Mr B will need to raise them and give the Care Provider the opportunity to comment on these points. If he remains unhappy with the Care Provider’s response or does not receive one within three months of the date of his formal complaint, he can come back to the Ombudsman and ask him to consider it further.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman