Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. We are satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions to investigate and apologise. It is unlikely we could add to its investigation or achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B witnessed cruel treatment of another resident at the care home where her mother, Ms C, lived. Despite what Ms B saw she says the Care Provider does not believe this behaviour is happening. Ms B believes this is the wrong attitude and the Care Provider should be open to ‘this could happen here’ and believe the voices of vulnerable people and their families.

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 enough 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. In some cases, we cannot make a finding.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms C lived at St Andrew’s run by St Andrew’s Residential Care Home Limited (the Care Provider).
8. Ms B overheard a care worker telling a resident the cat the resident was looking for was dead. Another care worker quickly reassured the resident that was not the case but did not comment on the first care worker’s behaviour, which had upset the resident.
9. The Care Provider properly investigated Ms B’s report by speaking with the relevant care workers. No-one could recall this conversation, but the care worker apologised for any upset caused. The Care Provider also apologised to Ms B and explained it would continue to appropriately oversee and train its staff.
10. The Ombudsman would not be able to add to this investigation. It is one person’s word against another about what happened so it is unlikely we could achieve anything further. The Care Provider has acted appropriately by apologising to acknowledge Ms B’s upset and speaking with staff to improve service. I find the Care Provider investigated in an open and transparent manner and was not dismissive or defensive.
11. The Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome Ms B wants of the Care Provider believing reports by residents or family members. This can open the way for false or malicious allegations, or the Care Provider unfairly disciplining staff.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we are satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions. It is unlikely we could add to its investigation or achieve a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman