Summary: Mrs X complained the care home charged her fees for her mother’s care after she had died. She also complained about how it responded to her concerns about noise from another resident. We ended this investigation because the care home has agreed to waive its 14-day after death fee and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome or anything more for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the care home charged fees for her mother’s care after she had died. She also raised concerns about noise from another resident during her mother’s time at the care home.
2. Mrs X said the matter had caused her distress following the death of Mrs Y.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Mrs X about the complaint and considered information she provided.
5. I considered information provided by the care home.
6. Mrs X and the care home had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mrs Y lived in a care home until she died in July 2022. Following her death, the care home invoiced Mrs X for 14 days of fees and a dilapidation charge in line with the contract she signed in July 2020.
8. Later that month Mrs X wrote to the care home to challenge its decision to charge for the full 14 days as she had removed her mother’s belongings within two days of her death. She challenged the dilapidation fee, and raised concerns about noise from another resident which she says caused her mother distress.
9. In August 2022 the care home responded and told Mrs X it was entitled to charge the full amount in line with the signed contract including the 14-day fee and the dilapidation charge. It said it had offered to move Mrs Y to another room because of the noise from another resident, but this offer was declined.
10. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the care home’s response and brought her complaint to us.
11. During the investigation the care home considered the matter further and offered to waive the 14-day fee as a goodwill gesture. Mrs X was satisfied with this offer.
12. As the care home offered to move Mrs Y to a different room due to noise from another resident, further investigation into this matter is unlikely to find fault. Therefore, I will not consider this matter further.
13. As the contract signed by Mrs X in July 2020 stated a dilapidation fee would be charged, further investigation into this matter is unlikely to find fault. It was also open for Mrs X or Mrs Y to raise this issue at the time the contract was signed.
14. The care home has now offered to waive the 14-day fee it charged after Mrs Y had died as a goodwill gesture which Mrs X has accepted. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mrs X. Therefore, I ended the investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I ended this investigation because the care home has offered to waive the 14-day fee and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman