Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of her mother’s care home towards the family and about the quality of care provided to her mother. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions of her mother’s care home towards the family and about the quality of care provided to her mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s mother, Mrs Z, received care and support in a care home. Miss X raised several complaints about the care home, including:
• Care home failed to tell the family about visiting restrictions.
• Care home failed to provide Mrs Z with adequate personal care.
• Care home put Mrs Z to bed too early.
• Care home failed to provide adequate medical care when Mrs Z’s health deteriorated.
• Care home staff was rude on the night Mrs Z died.
• Mrs Z’s personal items have gone missing.
7. The care provider investigated Miss X’s complaints. In its complaint response, the care provider acknowledged there had been some shortcomings with its interactions with the family and with the provision of personal care to Mrs X.
8. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings. This is because we could not add to the care provider’s findings due to the limited and conflicting evidence. For example, the care provider’s account of what happened on the night Mrs X died differs to the family’s account. As there is conflicting information, the Ombudsman is not able to make any finding as to what actually happened.
9. I am satisfied the faults accepted will have caused some distress and frustration to Miss X and her brother. While the care provider has taken appropriate action to implement service improvements to prevent the same faults from reoccurring, no personal remedy has been offered to Miss X or her brother.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the faults accepted by making a symbolic financial payment of £200. The Council should also apologise to Miss X for the distress and frustration caused by the faults accepted by the care provider.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman