Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely that we could add to investigations already undertaken by the Care Provider and the safeguarding authority. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council has deliberately deceived her family and other professionals involved in the care of her father, Mr D. Ms C says she has been emotionally distressed and does not want anyone else to go through the same.

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.

(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. Mr D lived at Formations Care Home, run by Formations Care Services Ltd (the Care Provider). The Council arranged Mr D’s care placement and remains responsible for meeting Mr D’s adult social care needs, even though the care is provided on its behalf by the Care Provider.
6. The Council is also responsible for safeguarding vulnerable adults living in its area. The aims of adult safeguarding are to prevent harm and reduce the risk of abuse or neglect to adults with care and support needs.
7. Ms C raised concerns about Mr D’s care after he had a fall for which the Care Provider did not seek medical attention and did not tell Ms C about the fall. The Care Provider also failed to tell Ms C about medication Mr D was taking against her wishes. The Council has undertaken a safeguarding investigation, found areas where the Care Provider must improve its service, and agreed actions the Care Provider will take. The Council has also shared information with its quality department to monitor the Care Provider, and with the Care Quality Commission who regulate care providers in England. I fail to see that an Ombudsman investigation could add anything further.
8. Although the Care Provider failed to seek medical attention for the fall, it sought medical attention for another issue. So, Mr D went to hospital the day of the fall and received any required medical attention. The Care Provider gave Mr D medication as prescribed by a Doctor; there is no evidence this caused Mr D a significant injustice. The Care Provider apologised to Ms C for not telling her.
9. The Care Provider has given a thorough response to Ms C’s complaint and has apologised to her for the impact of failures in its service. Mr D moved to another care home, so there are no ongoing concerns about his care. Although Ms C disputes the accuracy of the Care Provider’s information, it is based on its records and recollections of its staff. The Ombudsman would rely on the same evidence, so it is unlikely anything would be achieved by an Ombudsman investigation. We cannot prefer one person’s version of events to another and would consider what is more likely than not based on any available evidence. In any event, the Care Provider has apologised to Ms D and taken action to improve service, and it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to investigations already undertaken, or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman