Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and access to care records. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data protection issues around access to Ms C’s care records. If the Ombudsman was to investigate and find failings in Ms C’s care provision causing her injustice, we could provide Ms C no remedy because she has since died. It is therefore unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says she needs to know how her mother, Ms C, died. Ms B is concerned the Care Provider did not give Ms C the required care. But the Care Provider will not release its care records to her. Ms B is depressed; not knowing how Ms C died has had a negative impact on Ms B’s health and ability to work.

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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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. Ms C lived at Oakfield Croft care home run by Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (the Care Provider).
6. Ms B believes the Care Provider failed to give Ms C satisfactory care, and shortly after moving there Ms C died. Ms B says the local authority says there was no neglect, which implies there has been a safeguarding investigation of the care Ms C received. The Ombudsman could not add to that, and if there was any fault in Ms C’s care, we can provide no remedy to Ms C.
7. Ms B queries why there was no coroner’s investigation. This implies a doctor could issue Ms C’s death certificate and there were no suspicious circumstances.
8. Ms B wants to see the Care Provider’s care records so she can understand what happened at the end of Ms C’s life. The Care Provider has considered the request and explained its reasons for not sharing this information. It has also advised Ms B how she can access the records, by accessing them through the personal representative of Ms C’s estate.
9. A relevant data protection officer made this decision, considering laws and common law duty of confidentiality for Ms C’s personal data. Ms B could refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who would be better placed to decide on data protection issues. The ICO is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights.
10. Ms B wants the Ombudsman to investigate to ask the Care Provider a few questions about Ms C’s care. While I appreciate Ms B’s need for answers, we would not consider this a good use of our limited resource. We could achieve no worthwhile outcome for Ms C, who would be the person significantly impacted by any failures in care.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome or to the outcome Ms B wants. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the data protection issues around the access to Ms C’s care records. If the Ombudsman was to investigate and find failings in Ms C’s care provision causing her injustice, we could provide Ms C no remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman