Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care her late father Mr Y received from a Council-commissioned care home. The main injustice would be to Mr Y, who has died so we cannot provide them with any remedy. While it is upsetting for Miss X, there is not remaining significant injustice to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council-commissioned care home failed to properly look after her father. She says he deteriorated rapidly to losing mobility and continence. Miss X complains the care home left Mr Y wet, with no clothes, sore and uncomfortable. She said he was also often left without food. Miss X wanted her father reassessed and his needs properly met.
2. Since bringing her complaint to us, Miss X’s father has passed away.

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 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:

• the action has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complaint to justify our involvement;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The core complaint issue is about the standard of care Mr Y received at the care home prior to his death. The main impact of these issues was on Mr Y. We focus our investigations on matters where there has been significant personal injustice, but also where we can then provide outcomes for the recipient of the service. We cannot provide such outcomes where the service user has died. We are unable to provide a remedy for the late Mr Y so will not investigate.
7. I recognise Miss X has been caused distress by Mr Y’s declining condition before he passed away. Further investigation by us could not achieve the outcome Miss Y was seeking when she first approached us. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulate care providers in England and have fundamental standards below which care should never drop.
8. The complaints are specific to Mr Y’s care support and do not suggest a wider public interest that would justify an Ombudsman investigation. The CQC is responsible for inspecting the care provider more widely.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The main injustice caused by any poor care is to Mr Y, who has died so we cannot provide him a remedy. While I understand it is upsetting for Mr Y’s family, it does not warrant our involvement. I do not consider there is a wider public interest that would justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman