Summary: Mr D complained the Council wrongly kept his visitation restrictions in place for a care home where his friend lives. He said this caused him distress. We found the Council at fault as its policy did not set clear standards for when Mr D’s restrictions would be reviewed and how he would be informed. However, as it found his behaviour continued to breach its policy, the outcome would have been the same. Mr D did therefore not experience an injustice as a result of the Council’s fault. The Council should review its policy to prevent any potential future injustice to other visitors with restricted access.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr D, was a carer for his friend (Mrs X) until 2015 when she was moved to residential care (the Care Home). Mr D said he was wrongly being prevented from seeing her without managerial supervision. He said:
• this is a result of an incident in 2020 when he said he was assaulted by a person at the Care Home. The other person accused Mr D of assaulting her;
• he was never given the name of the other person involved in the incident; and
• his access restrictions to the Care Home wrongly remain in place.
2. As a result, Mr D said he has experienced distress and wants to be able to visit Mrs X at the Care Home without any restrictions in place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr D’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr D;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries, including its Care Home Visitor Policy;
7. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Care Home’s Visitor Policy

8. The Care Home’s Visitor Policy (the Policy) sets out its responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2018 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This includes:
• respecting its service users’ rights to have visitors and maintaining privacy as far as practicable;
• supporting its service users to maintain relationships while receiving care and treatment; and
• having robust procedures and processes to prevent its service users from being abused by staff or other people they have contact with, including visitors; and
• balancing these rights against other rights and other people’s rights.
9. The Policy in circumstances where a visitor’s behaviour does not meet the expected standards the Care Home expects, or it believes the visitor may pose a risk to the service user, other service users, its staff, or the running of its service, it may:
• ask the visitor to leave;
• place conditions that restrict the visitor’s ability to enter the Care Home, or where in the Care Home a visit can take place; and
• refuse the visitor access to the Care Home.
10. The Policy also says the Care Home manager, or their deputy, will first meeting with the person to try and resolve the issues or concerns identified before any restrictions will be put in place. Any restrictions put in place should be reviewed.

What happened

11. Mr D was a carer for his friend (Mrs X) until 2015 when she moved into the Care Home. He remained in contact with her through visits in and outside the Care Home.
12. In 2020 the Care Home placed restrictions on Mr X’s visits to the Care Home following its concerns about his behaviour towards staff and a physical altercation involving Mr D and another person in the Care Home.
13. The restrictions required Mr D to visit Mrs X during times when management was present at the care home. He could telephone Mrs X, and there were no restrictions on this, but Mrs X was at times unavailable when he called.

Mr D’s complaint

14. Mr D complained to the Council about the restrictions in place for his visits to the Care Home. He disagreed with the reasons for these to be in place and believed they should have been removed. He also raised safeguarding concerns about the care Mrs X received and the safety of the Care Home facilities.
15. In response the Council said it had previously considered and responded to Mr D’s concerns about the physical altercation incident in 2020. The Care Home had since kept the restrictions under review and still considered them appropriate. This was because on Mr D’s visits to the Care Home since, he had:
• tried to sell perfume to other service users and told them not take their medication;
• caused upset to Mrs X, which has led to the Care Home requiring him to call Mrs X before arriving to ensure she wanted his visit;
• refused to leave when asked to do so;
• been disrespectful to everyone in the Care Home, in particular its staff.
16. The Council also said it had previously considered Mr D’s safeguarding concerns but had found no evidence which substantiated his concerns.
17. Mr D was not satisfied with the Council’s response regarding the restriction in place for his visits to the Care Home. He asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
18. Since Mr D complained to the Ombudsman, the Council has said the Care Home’s relationship with Mr D has deteriorated further. It said this is because he had continued to be rude, hostile and made a number of vexatious and malicious allegations which were unfounded. It has therefore banned him from attending the Care Home premises, but Mrs X can continue to see Mr D outside the Care Home.

Analysis

19. Mr D complained to us about restrictions to his visits to Mrs X previously. We issued a decision in December 2020 which found no fault, because restrictions were based on Mr D’s conduct and were in line with the Care Home’s policy. I have only considered what has happened since then because I cannot change that decision.
20. I have also not considered the Council’s, or the Care Home’s, decision not to share personal details of the person involved in the incident. Mr D can bring such matters to the attention of the Information Commissioner (ICO) who can decide if such information should be shared with him.

The Care Home’s review of Mr D’s restrictions

21. The Care Home’s Policy says it will review any restrictions it places on visitors. It does not say when or how often such reviews will take place, nor does it set out how it will inform the person involved about its decision to end or retain the restrictions, or procedures in place.
22. I would expect the Care Home’s Policy to clearly set out when it would review Mr D’s restrictions. It should also after each review set out its findings and share these with Mr D, which in line with good practice, should be in writing.
23. I have seen no evidence how often the Care Home’s procedures for Mr D’s visits to Mrs X was reviewed, nor any written evidence of the findings. This was fault.
24. However, I am not satisfied this caused Mr D an injustice. This is because he was aware the restrictions were continuing through his ongoing communication with the Care Home management during his visits with Mrs X, and he was verbally told the restrictions would continue.
25. In addition, whether the Care Home had reviewed it restrictions of Mr D’s visits is unlikely to have led to a difference outcome. This is because it continued to find Mr D’s behaviour to be in breach of its Policy as set out in paragraph 15 during many of his visits since 2021. As these were decisions it was entitled to make, and I cannot therefore criticise their merits.
26. In reaching my view, I also acknowledge the Council had limited the impact this would have on Mrs X and her wishes, as it continues to enable her to visit Mr D outside the Care Home.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the future injustice the Council may cause, the Council should, within three months of the final decision;
2. review the Care Home’s Visitor Policy to include how it will review any procedures in place, which restricts visitors contact with service users in the Care Home. This includes how often reviews will take place and how it notified the persons affected of its decisions.
3. remind its staff of the requirement to review procedures for restricting visitor’s contact with service users of the Care Home as set out in its Visitor’s Policy.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault, which did not cause Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed with my recommendations, it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman