Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mr B during his stay in a care home. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about the standard of care his father, Mr B received from his Care Provider. Mr C says he was told staff would help encourage Mr B to walk but because staff used the hoist at all times instead of encouraging and moving him he now cannot walk at all. Mr C says Mr B was left alone a lot of the time, was not taken to the dining room for meals or taken into the garden. Mr C says they paid for extra physiotherapy support but because the staff did not support him, he did not make progress. Mr C says the Care Provider should not charge the full fees because Mr B did not receive the care he was promised. In addition, Mr C says the Care Provider should not charge the full daily rate when a resident is in hospital.

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 injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B went into the home on1 August 2022. He was admitted to hospital 6 September 2022. Following discharge from hospital on 12 October Mr B was readmitted to the home then discharged back to his own home on 11 October 2022.
6. The Care Provider responded to Mr C’s complaints. It explained the physiotherapist recorded staff were not to walk with Mr B. Staff continued to assist him using the stand aid for transfers, encouraged him sitting, standing and practice turning only. It said Mr C had capacity to make his own decisions and records show when Mr B spent time in the lounge, dining room and took part in activities. It says there were three days when Mr B declined to leave his room due to being tired or in pain. The Care Provider explained electronic records record the level of care Mr B received, activities he participated in and times when he declined to leave his room. We could not add to this and could not make a finding that Mr B’s mobility would have improved had he received different care even if we investigated.
7. Mr C says the Care Provider should not charge a full days rate when a resident is in hospital. The Care Provider referred Mr C to its terms and conditions which explain the costs incurred during hospital stays. We could not say this is fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because we could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding even if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman