Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is no evidence of a significant injustice to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Care Provider’s pre-admission assessment was flawed. Ms B says the Care Provider failed to consider that her father, Mr C, was cognitively impaired and did not carry out a Mental Capacity Assessment. Ms B says Mr C had no care plan for the first nine months of his stay, and his needs were overlooked. Ms B says the Care Provider facilitated her brother’s control of their father, meaning Mr C was living in an unsuitable home which did not meet his needs. It is upsetting for Ms B that she felt helpless and not listened to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the action has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I considered the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr C lived at The Grange, a care home run by Burlington Care Limited. Ms B says the Care Provider was wrong to state on the pre-admission assessment that Mr C had no impairment or disturbance in the functioning of his mind or brain. Ms B says Mr C was cognitively impaired.
7. Under the Mental Capacity Act, you cannot assume someone cannot make a decision for themselves just because they have a particular medical condition or disability.
8. Even if the Care Provider should have ticked the box on its form differently, there is no evidence it caused any injustice or would have led to a different outcome. The Care Provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act by recording Mr C:

• Understands the information relevant to the decision
• Retains the information long enough to make a decision
• Can use or weigh the information in order to make a decision
• Can communicate their decision

9. The Care Provider recorded Mr C was fully orientated to the day, time and place. Mr C had no confusion and could respond appropriately throughout the assessment. The Care Provider was satisfied Mr C could understand the decision he was making to move permanently into a care home. Mr C had also previously visited the care home and chosen the rooms for he and his wife.
10. Ms B also challenges that it is not her father’s signature on the form, and that her brother signed the form. I again do not consider there is any evidence of injustice or that the outcome would be any different, regardless who signed the form. Mr C went on to live at the care home for four years, so there is no evidence to suggest he did not wish to be there.
11. If Mr C did not have capacity to make the decision, then the decision was taken by his son who had power of attorney to make decisions for Mr C at the point Mr C lost capacity. So again, the outcome would be the same and there is no evidence of injustice.
12. Ms B says the Care Provider was not adequately meeting Mr C’s care and support needs and that he was not happy there. I have no evidence to suggest there was any injustice to Mr C or that he wished to make any complaint about the care he was receiving. Even if there was, we could no longer offer any remedy to Mr C as he has since died.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is no evidence of a significant injustice to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman