• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My assessment
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to his mother-in-law by her care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the standard of care provided to his mother-in-law by her care home. In particular, he complains:
   • There was inadequate heating and hot water in her room.
   • The food served was inadequate.
   • Items have gone missing from her room.
   • Room was not cleaned to an acceptable standard. Mr X said there was soiled bedding and sheets, overflowing bins, commode not emptied, and faeces left on personal belongings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we decide:
   • we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
   • investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s mother-in-law, Mrs Z, received care in a care home. Mr X raised several complaints about the standard of care provided to Mrs Z by the care home.
6. In response to his complaint, the care provider accepted some of the care provided fell below the standards expected. It acknowledged:
   • Mrs Z was not always supported by female carers.
   • There were incidents of soiled sheets.
   • Food was not of the standard accepted.
   • Poor standards of cleanliness in Mrs Z’s room.
   • There was delay in fitting a radiator to Mrs Z’s room.
   • There were medication errors.
   • Personal belongings had been damaged.
7. In recognition of the faults, the care provider agreed to waive the outstanding care charges due of just over £1300. The care provider said these charges were to cover the first week of May 2023 and that this period was not covered by continuing healthcare (CHC) funding.
8. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The care provider has acknowledged some of the care provided to Mrs Z fell below the standards expected. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to any further findings of fault due to the time that has passed and the limited evidence available.
9. Further, the care provider has made an appropriate remedy offer, which is line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. An investigation would not lead to any increased remedy.
10. I note Mr X considers the remedy does not benefit Mrs Z as the charges waived by the care home are covered by CHC funding. However, the evidence provided by the care home is that the charges waived would not have been covered by CHC funding as these charges applied prior to the start date of CHC funding. Therefore, I am satisfied the remedy provided is appropriate to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the accepted faults.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page