Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person using the service has died so we can provide no personal remedy for any poor care. The person complaining does not have a significant enough personal injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to properly meet her relative, Ms C’s, care and support needs. Ms B says when she raised concerns she was ignored and unsupported and felt helpless. The Council refused to accept a complaint from Ms B.

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 any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged Ms C’s placement at a nursing home, so remained responsible for the adult social care provided to Ms C on its behalf. The placement was outside of the Council’s borough and so another council was the relevant safeguarding authority.
6. Ms B raised concerns about Ms C’s care. The Council said the complaint was not in its remit and referred Ms B to the safeguarding authority. Ms B raised concerns with the safeguarding authority and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who regulate care providers in England.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. The most significant injustice would be to Ms C, who was receiving the alleged poor care. Ms C has died, so the Ombudsman can provide no remedy to her for any impact of poor care. The safeguarding authority and the CQC can consider service improvement actions, so there is nothing further for the Ombudsman to add.
9. Although it would be upsetting for Ms B to witness her relative’s care, and to feel unheard in her concerns, this is not significant enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
10. Ms B is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not a significant enough injustice to Ms B to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman