Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult residential care. The main injustice would be to the resident, who has died and so we can provide them no remedy. While it is upsetting for the family, there is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the care provided to her relative, Mr C, in a residential care home. Ms B says the Care Provider didn’t support Mr C’s wellbeing as it did not meet his food requirements, rearranged his room, dressed him in clothes that were not his, did not wash or shave him adequately, handled him roughly, sent him to hospital without his glasses, and removed his wheelchair without ordering a replacement. This caused Ms B distress. Ms B feels the Care Provider has been defensive and not taken learning from the concerns, and so other residents may be at risk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the action has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

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. Mr C lived at Park View, a residential home run by Runwood Homes Limited (the Care Provider).
6. Mr C has died and so the Ombudsman can provide no remedy to him for the impact of any poor care he may have received. While it would be upsetting for Ms B, I do not consider there is a claimed significant injustice that would justify an Ombudsman investigation.
7. The Care Provider agreed it failed to provide Mr C’s glasses when he went to hospital. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulate care providers in England and have fundamental standards below which care should never drop. The Care Provider’s failure here may be a breach of the fundamental standards for person centred care, and dignity and respect.
8. The complaints are specific to Mr C’s care support and do not suggest a wider public interest that would justify an Ombudsman investigation. The CQC is responsible to check the Care Provider more widely.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’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 C, who has died so we cannot provide him a remedy. While I understand it is upsetting for Mr C’s family, it does not warrant our involvement. I do not consider there is a wider public interest that would justify an Ombudsman investigation.
10. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman