Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care someone received in a care home or the information provided to their representative. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code; there is not enough evidence of fault in the provider’s actions or of significant injustice to the person, and we could not likely resolve any dispute about what happened so the matter does not warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms G complains for Mr H the care home he lived in for much of 2023 failed to:
• provide adequate care, which contributed to a significant deterioration in his mental and physical health, him becoming more isolated in his room, and to weight loss; and
• communicate properly with her as Mr H’s attorney and Relevant Person's Representative (RPR) under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
2. Ms G would like a thorough investigation, to receive all the information she has requested but she believes the care provider is withholding, and admissions from it that it breached its contract, prevented Ms G acting as Mr H’s RPR, and should have provided better care for Mr H and better communication with her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Care Provider’.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The care provider has sent Ms G a detailed and cogent complaint response. Its conclusions follow from the evidence to which it has referred and Ms G has now had access.
7. There is no evidence in any of the details that Mr H’s mental and physical health deteriorated significantly while he was at the care home, beyond what might be expected for a person with dementia. The care provider has specifically pointed to evidence contrary to the Ms G’s views on some points, including Mr H’s recorded weight on a regular basis, engagement with staff and his mood. Even though I recognise Ms G disputes what the care provider has said or the evidence it has relied on, if we were to investigate we would have access to no more information than the provider had. It is therefore unlikely we could reach any different result than the one the care provider has given her.
8. The care provider has acknowledged and apologised for the difference between a member of staff committing informally to update Ms G weekly, and the evidence, including dates from records, of its communication with her on approximately a fortnightly basis and at other times during the relevant period. The provider said arrangements for Mr H’s deprivation of liberty required ‘regular’ communication but did not specify a particular frequency. There would therefore be no reason for us to criticise the provider for any lack of communication.
9. Mr H has been living elsewhere since December 2023, so we could not achieve anything meaningful for him by investigating. The care provider says it has sent Ms G all the information it has about Mr H’s time at its care home. It is not our role to seek to achieve answers to all the questions Ms G might have.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms G’s complaint because her complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code; there is not enough evidence of fault in the provider’s actions or of significant injustice to Mr H, and we could not likely resolve any dispute about what happened so the matter does not warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman