Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider has responded to Mrs X’s concerns about her mother’s care. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not result in a different outcome, as the Care Provider has already addressed the issues and there is insufficient evidence its actions caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about an acrid smell in her apartment within a care home run by the Care Provider. Mrs X considers the Care Provider has not sufficiently addressed her concerns about this and other issues she raised about the quality of day-to-day care Mrs Y receives. She wants the Care Provider to undertake an inspection of Mrs Y’s apartment.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs Y has been a resident at care home run by the Care Provider since 2015. Earlier this year, Mrs X made a complaint about the quality of day-to-day care Mrs Y was receiving from care home staff. Mrs X’s concerns included:

• not getting Mrs Y ready in time for appointments;
• not encouraging Mrs Y to comply to complete personal hygiene tasks (such as teeth brushing);
• not putting clothes and bedding away;
• not providing smaller towels as requested;
• delay in placing handles on Mrs Y’s new walking frame;
• some carers not being competent enough for the job; and,
• finding Mrs Y sitting in her room with the curtains closed in the early evening.

5. The Care Provider responded to each of Mrs X’s concerns above. It explained that it was led by Mrs Y’s wishes around the care she received as she still retained mental capacity to express what she wanted. The Care Provider also explained the action it had taken with staff to address the feedback from Mrs X and hoped she would see an improvement. The Care Provider apologised it did not meet Mrs X’s expectations.
6. Mrs X has brought her continued concerns about the acrid smell in Mrs Y’s apartment to us. The Care Provider has explained it cleans Mrs Y’s apartment daily and completes weekly deep cleans. Staff have also been instructed to ensure all soiled laundry is removed from Mrs Y’s apartment by 15:00 daily.
7. The Care Provider has provided a thorough and detailed response to Mrs X’s concerns and explained the steps it will take to improve. Although Mrs X remains dissatisfied and does not accept the Care Provider’s explanations, there is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because this would not result in a different outcome. The Care Provider has already addressed the issues sufficiently and there is insufficient evidence its actions caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman