Summary: Mrs X complained about poor communications from the Care Provider the Council commissioned. She also said the Care Provider had failed to return some of her husband’s possessions. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the Council arranged for the Care Provider to contact Mrs X directly to resolve any outstanding issues. This remedies the remaining injustice to Mrs X and it is unlikely an investigation could achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s husband (Mr X) received residential care arranged by the Council. Mrs X complained to the Council about poor communications from the Care Provider when Mr X passed away. Mrs X said the Care Provider did not tell her or Mr X’s family he was ill. Mrs X said she only learnt Mr X had passed away when an ambulance crew told her. Mrs X said she had not been given any information about the time leading up to Mr X passing away. Mrs X said the Care Provider had failed to return money and possessions belonging to Mr X.

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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its original response to Mrs X the Council said it had contacted the Care Provider about her concerns. It said the Care Provider claimed conversations were held with Mrs X and Mr X’s family after he passed away. The Council said the manager of the Care Provider believed he had made an “open invitation” for Mrs X to collect Mr X’s belongings. It accepted an appointment would have been better. It had therefore asked the manager of the Care Provider to contact Mrs X. She could then arrange a time to collect Mr X’s possessions and to ask any other questions she might have. The Council partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint.
6. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs X denied conversations with the Care Provider took place after Mr X passed away. She said the Care Provider had still not been in touch – despite what the Council had said.
7. I asked the Council about this. It said it had gone back to the Care Provider and asked it to contact Mrs X. It said this had happened and Mr X’s possessions would be returned. The Council said it was sorry this had not happened earlier and would follow up the matter with the Care Provider.
8. We will not therefore investigate Mrs X’s complaint. It is clear how important the issues at the heart of her complaint are. But the Council partially upheld Mrs X’s original complaint, and after the Ombudsman’s involvement, ensured the Care Provider contacted Mrs X. This remedies any outstanding injustice, and an investigation could not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman