Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has accepted fault, apologised, waived outstanding care fees, and said what action it will take to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr E says the Care Provider failed to give acceptable care to his relative, Ms F, when she lived in its care home. The failures in Ms F’s care have left her family distressed. Mr E wants copies of Ms F’s care records, for care staff to be named and shamed, for his mother’s medical treatment to be funded, for a public apology in the press, for compensation, and for a large refund of fees.

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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms F lived at Collingwood Court Care Home (the Care Provider). Ms F’s care was arranged by the Council; it remains responsible to meet Ms F’s adult social care needs even where it has contracted it out to a care provider. So, we consider the Care Provider’s actions are on behalf of the Council, and any findings are against the Council.
6. The Care Provider has accepted some failings in the service it provided to Ms F. The Care Provider has apologised to Mr E, waived over £700 of outstanding care fees, and said what it will do to improve its service. Ms F has died and so we can provide no remedy to her.
7. Mr E’s mother has depression and migraines. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could decide this is solely because of the actions of the Council, or the Care Provider on its behalf. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants, for the Council to pay for his mother’s migraine treatment. We would not consider there is a significant enough outstanding injustice to Mr E, or his family, to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Care Provider has acknowledged where it went wrong, has apologised to Mr E and waived care fees. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.
8. We cannot achieve most of what Mr E seeks as remedy. Any findings are against the Council, not individuals acting on its behalf, so we cannot ‘name and shame’ care staff. The Ombudsman does not award compensation. As a body focussed on individual justice and institutional improvement, we do not impose punitive fines for errors or take action to punish people.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. The ICO would be better placed to consider how the Care Provider has dealt with Mr E’s request for care records.
10. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should never fall. The Care Provider should have provided Ms F with person-centred care meeting the needs and preferences detailed in an individual care plan and should provide care with dignity and respect. The Care Provider accepts it did not always support Ms F to change continence pads and clothing when needed. Its failures in these areas may be breaches of the fundamental standards.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We will also share the outcome with the Council; its quality assurance team should work with the Care Provider to improve the commissioned service.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr E’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve most of what Mr E wants, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the request for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman