Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in telling a relative of a death of an adult social care home resident. The Council has accepted fault and explained what went wrong and how it will improve service. The Council has apologised for the impact of its fault. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Ombudsman cannot help the relative to get the deceased’s assets, the Council is right to say the relative should get the correct legal status to achieve this.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council, or Care Provider acting on its behalf, failed to tell him when his uncle (Mr C) died. The Council told Mr B five months later, during which time Mr C’s death had not been registered and he had remained at the funeral directors. Mr B says he is fraught, and his health is affected, he just wants answers and Mr C’s personal possessions returning to the family. The Care Provider says he must provide proof of relevant status for it to share this information with him.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged Mr C’s residential care at Pennington Court care home, run by Westward Care (the Care Provider). Any actions by the Care Provider are taken on behalf of the Council, so this complaint is registered against the Council.
6. Mr B explains he was the only person who knew where Mr C was living and who kept in contact with the Care Provider for updates.
7. The Council accepts a failure by the Care Provider to properly maintain its records, which meant when Mr C died there was no record of his relationship with Mr B.
8. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. The CQC has fundamental standards those registered to provide care services must achieve. The Care Provider’s failures in record keeping may be a breach of the fundamental standards.
9. The Council accepts failures in communication and processes which meant delays in contacting Mr B and delays organising Mr C’s funeral. The Council has apologised to Mr B and explained the actions it will take to prevent future failings in service.
10. Mr B wants answers to questions and access to Mr C’s belongings. The Council and Care Provider have told Mr B he must provide evidence he is administering Mr C’s estate for it to share this information. The Ombudsman would not find fault with this. If nobody else is administering Mr C’s estate, then Mr B can apply to be the administrator. Mr B would then have the legal responsibility to collect in any assets of the estate and distribute them to the relevant beneficiaries. If someone else already has this status then Mr B should contact them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would achieve a different outcome. The Council has accepted fault, explained why things went wrong, apologised to Mr B for the impact on him, and explained what it will do to improve future service in similar circumstances.
12. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman