Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about harm caused to Mrs Y due to preventable falls during respite in a care home. The Council has already provided a remedy in line with our guidance, and the courts are best placed to consider claims for compensation due to negligence.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Care Provider, which the Council commissioned, was negligent when it did not provide her mother, Mrs Y, the appropriate support with mobilising during a period of respite. Ms X says this caused Mrs Y to suffer several falls which ultimately led to Mrs Y being hospitalised with a spinal fracture. Ms X says Mrs Y has not been able to walk since. Ms X says she and her father have needed to provide more intensive support to Mrs Y as a result of this, they have experienced a financial detriment, and it has affected both their mental health. Ms X wants the Council to provide compensation for Mrs Y’s pain, and for Ms X’s and her father’s distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y had a period of respite in a care home. She suffered several falls, which the Council determined during its investigations were avoidable. The Council provided a sincere apology in its complaint response which meets our guidelines for effective apologies. It also set out its offer of a symbolic payment totalling £3,000, which included recognition of Mrs Y’s distress and the actual harm caused, as well as Ms X’s distress and the time and trouble she went to during the Council’s complaints process.
7. Where we recommend organisations make a payment to recognise injustice caused by fault, it is often a modest amount intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal.
8. The Council’s offer of a symbolic payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. We could not recommend a more significant sum of money, and given that Ms X is seeking this, it is reasonable in this case for her to refer the matter to the courts as a negligence claim.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already offered a symbolic payment which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman