Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because we cannot find an officer was at fault when they took photographs of Ms C. The Council has proposed appropriate action to acknowledge Ms B’s distress caused by failures in its communication with her about Ms C's care placement.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council did not give her the full information about its concerns about Fern Court, the residential care home where her sister (Ms C) lives. Ms B found it confusing because the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Fern Court were saying everything was ok, but the Council was saying otherwise. Ms B suspected the Council wanted to move Ms C to save money.
2. Ms B found out from Fern Court, rather than the Council, that the Council was looking at alternative accommodation for its clients. Ms B felt anxious that the Council was saying one thing but doing another, and felt the Council was going against CQC recommendations. So, Ms B felt no choice but to seek legal advice, which she thinks the Council should pay for.
3. Ms B also complains that a Council officer took photographs of Ms C, including in Ms C’s bedroom. Ms B is concerned that Ms C’s personal space was intruded on.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

6. We have accepted Ms B as a suitable representative for Ms C.
7. 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

11. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. In February 2022 it inspected Fern Court as inadequate and put it in special measures.
12. The Council is responsible for meeting Ms C’s care and support needs, and does so by arranging a residential placement at Fern Court.
13. The Council manages the contract it has with Fern Court to ensure it is getting the service it needs. The Council’s contract monitoring and performance management is different to the role of CQC. At the same time Fern Court was inspected as inadequate by the CQC it was also failing on its contract with the Council. Both the CQC and the Council were working with Fern Court to gain improvement.
14. The Council was considering whether it might need to move its clients and was looking into alternative accommodation. Though Ms B thinks this was to save costs, there is no evidence to support that assumption. The evidence supports the reasons for a potential move was concerns over the ability of Fern Court to meet the needs of the clients and keep them safe. There is no fault in the Council considering all options while working with Fern Court to improve service.
15. I appreciate this was a worrying time for Ms B and Ms C, as Ms C was settled at Fern Court, was happy with the support she was receiving, and had no wish to move. I also understand it was a confusing time as Ms B was told different things by the CQC and the Council. This was because those bodies both had slightly different roles, therefore different concerns and plans to achieve their required aims.
16. The Council accepts it could have communicated better with Ms B and has offered £300 to acknowledge the distress caused by those failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Remedies’. As this is at the top end of the £100 - £300 the Ombudsman would typically recommend to acknowledge distress, it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.
17. Ms B wants the Council to pay her legal fees. I cannot say the legal fees are a direct and necessary result of Council fault.
18. Ms B is concerned a Council officer took photographs of Ms C. The Council says Ms C asked the officer to take photographs of Ms C on Ms C’s phone. This included taking photographs in Ms C’s bedroom. Ms B disputes that Ms C would have invited someone she had only just met to her room, and if Ms C did this then Ms B questions whether the officer should have informed a member of staff at Fern Court.
19. The Ombudsman cannot find out what happened, as it is one person’s word against another. The Ombudsman cannot say there was any fault by the officer or any significant injustice that would warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we cannot make a finding about an officer taking photographs of Ms C. The Council has proposed satisfactory action to acknowledge Ms B’s distress over poor communication regarding the Council’s concerns about the care placement and the potential for a move. The Council has offered to pay Ms B £300 to acknowledge her distress.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman