Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care his mother Ms Y received from the Council commissioned Care Provider. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X made several complaints about the care his mother Ms Y received while being cared for by the Care Provider. He also complained that the Care Provider terminated Ms Y’s care package.
2. He said this situation has put him and Ms Y to stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Care Provider about the care his mother, Ms Y was receiving, stating that amongst other things her personal care was being neglected. The Care Provider investigated Mr X’s complaint points and partially justified

Upheld?

some of the complaint points whilst rejecting or making no finding on others. The Care Provider informed Mr X what it was going to do to address the upheld findings and invited him to a meeting to discuss a way to move forward. Soon after, the Care Provider served notice on Ms Y’s care package in line with its policy.

7. Mr X

This whole para is too concerned with stating the complaints investigation was fine and therefore we won't investigate. You are confusing what we do with stat complaints here. That is the right approach for stat complaints procedure, but not really the right approach when we are just considering a council/care provider response.
Instead you want to focus on the fact that the findings that were upheld have offered reasonable remedies and so nothing further we would achieve on those points.

For the other points that was not upheld, you will want to note that we are unlikely to find fault/ insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Don't put too much emphasis on "the care provider's investigation was fine so we won't investigate" because that just opens you up to a world of pain and rebuttal from the PA.

We are making our own decisions, yes using the findings of the care provider's complaint response, but we have our own reasons for not investigating. i.e. no diff outcome, no fault, no injustice.

wants us to find the Care Provider at fault for the care Ms Y received and for terminating her care package. The Care Provider investigated Mr X’s complaint points and provided suitable remedies to address the upheld points. It gave satisfactory reasons for the complaint points it did not uphold. The Care Provider then served notice on Ms Y’s care package and followed its policy in doing so. We will not reinvestigate matters that have already been suitably addressed in line with the correct policy.

Focus on one point at a time so your rationale is clear.

Do care received first - address reasons why we won't investigate this complaint element.

Only then move on to termination of care package. Explain there is insufficient evidence of fault as care provider gave notice in line with service contract and reasons given also in line with the contract.

There is no evidence the Care Provider’s investigation was flawed or that its decision to terminate Ms Y’s care package was made incorrectly.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman