Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mr B’s late wife’s Care Provider. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s response or provide a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that his late wife’s placement was not suitable for her and although some carers provided good care he is unhappy with the management team. Mr B says Mrs B was not able to get out into the garden which she would have loved to do, he was not allowed to see the main lounge area, his daughter could not visit because the home did not have wheelchair access and he was unfairly subjected to supervised visits. Mr B says Mrs B’s Care Provider was not honest and had inflexible rules.

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)
3. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council arranged Mrs B’s placement and is responsible for the actions of care it commissions from third parties. The Care Provider responded to Mr B’s complaint and explained it was not aware Mrs B’s daughter needed to access the building with her wheelchair when Mrs B first came to the home, as the hospital access team had not passed on this information. It explained it tried to secure a parking permit from the Council but was unable to do this.
7. The Care Provider says it also offered to move Mrs B to a ground floor room so her daughter could access the building, but Mr B refused this option. Mr B disputes this and says he did not refuse.
8. The Care provider says Mr B refused to wear PPE and so visits with Mrs B were supervised. It explained visits during the Covid-19 pandemic were limited and PPE was required for the safety and well-being of all residents and staff. Mr B disputes this and says he did not refuse to wear the protective equipment.
9. Mr B also says he should have been allowed to see the main lounge. The Care Provider has explained the larger lounge was not off limits, but visitors were encouraged to go directly to residents own rooms or the garden for infection control reasons and to minimise the number of people meeting in corridors due to social distancing guidance.
10. Mr B is unhappy with the way he has been treated by management in the home, and with the Care Provider’s response to his complaint, which he says is inaccurate. However, we will not investigate the matter. This is because although Mr B disputes the Care Provider’s version of the incidents complained of, it is unlikely that an investigation by the LGSCO would be able to reconcile and resolve the different accounts, or make an evidence based decision regarding the alleged fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we would be unlikely to be able to add to the Care Provider’s response or provide a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman