Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care arranged by the Council. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman investigation. The complainant wants access to information, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this issue.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the care provider acting for the Council failed to adequately care and support her relative, Ms E. The care provider gave notice and evicted Ms E. Ms D is upset at the way the care provider gave notice and says there was no warning or empathy. Ms D is concerned at the frequent falls Ms E was having and wants to see relevant care records and CCTV footage.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 E lived in a residential care home arranged by the Council. Ms E’s health was declining, and she was having frequent falls. The care home served notice on her to leave as it said it could no longer meet her needs.
6. As the Council was arranging Ms E’s care, the care provider should have contacted the Council before giving Ms E notice to leave. The care provider should have asked the Council to reassess Ms E’s needs. If the Council decided the care provider could no longer meet Ms E’s needs the Council should have arranged a best interest meeting to decide where Ms E should live.
7. Because the care provider did not follow the correct process, it came as a shock when the care provider said Ms E must leave. However, I cannot say the outcome would have been any different and that Ms E would not have had to move.
8. The care provider explained the actions it took in response to Ms E’s falls, including making relevant referrals to safeguarding and for medical advice. The care provider apologised to Ms D for the way it gave notice.
9. Ms E has since died. Ms D would like access to Ms E’s care records, and to see CCTV footage of falls. Ms D can make a formal request to the Council for this information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. If Ms D is not happy with the way the Council responds to her request for information, she can refer to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with access to information rights. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman