Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to inform her of her late father’s, Mr C’s, death. This is because the Council has acknowledged the fault, implemented additional processes to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence happening again in the future, and further investigation by us could not add to this.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained she was not told her father; Mr C had passed away in July. Mrs B only found out in September when the Council invoiced her for Mr C’s care. Mrs B was concerned his Care Provider had no record of communications she had with Mr C over the years and was upset with the lack of respect shown to her family when they attended to collect Mr C’s belongings from his Care Provider.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated Mrs B’s concerns. It found Mr C said he wanted Mrs B to be informed about any hospital admission or when he passed away. The Council failed to do this and explained what happened. It said the Care Provider notified the Council’s financial services that Mr C had passed away and requested it notified Mrs B. The Care Provider asked for Mrs B’s contact details and staff in the Finance Department said it would pass the request onto the Social Work Team. But the detail of the message was not passed on, so Mrs B was not informed of Mr C’s death. Consequently, Mrs B missed the opportunity to attend Mr C’s funeral and burial. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding between teams and the Care Provider and made the following recommendations.

• Staff members in the Finances Team who were contacted by the Care Provider have been reminded to ensure messages are passed on accurately to the appropriate team to ensure that requested actions are taken.
• Staff must record important information on the system, so it is always visible on the front of a person’s electronic record.
• The Council advised the Care Provider to request contact details of family members from the Council to ensure that they inform families of the death of the people they support.

6. The Council and the Care Provider sincerely apologised for the distress and upset caused by its failure to communicate with Mrs B. The Council cancelled the invoice and has implemented additional processes to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence happening again in the future. The Care Provider offered to meet with Mrs B, but she says this would be too distressing for her.
7. It is understandable that Mrs B is upsent and distressed at not having the opportunity to attend Mr C’s funeral and burial, but further investigation by us could not provide a different outcome or explanation to that she has received from the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman