Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about restricted visiting to a relative in a care home. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome that would justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B says a care provider acting for the Council would not allow him to visit his relative, Ms C, for five months. This caused much distress at the time and Mr B says it has left a lasting impact on his health and wellbeing. Mr B wants the Council to accept there was no basis for this restriction and to apologise for the impact.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Claremont Care Home was providing residential care support to Ms C on behalf of the Council. Ms C has died, and so we can provide no remedy to her for the impact of any poor care and support she received. The care provider has improved its service by working with the Care Quality Commission.
7. Mr B has many questions about why the care home restricted his visits solely based on reports from staff and with no supporting evidence. Although care providers can restrict or ban visitors from entering care homes they run, we would expect them to have a process for implementing and reviewing this. We would expect care providers to have a relevant policy in place, which would involve giving a warning to someone about their behaviour before implementing restrictions on visiting the home, and to explain when any restriction will be reviewed. Mr B says this did not happen. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 the care provider should have considered the least restrictive option for Ms C. Serving notice to terminate her placement at the home, and not allowing Mr B to enter the home, were not the least restrictive options. This was resolved five months later when the care home agreed to supervised visits. Unfortunately, Ms C died shortly after, so Mr B lost time with her at the end of her life.
8. The Council asked the provider to apologise to Mr B, which it did, but the Council and Mr B agree the apology is not satisfactory. The Council said there is nothing further it can do.
9. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. We must apply the best use of our resource. In this case it would not be the best use of resource to investigate to try and get answers for Mr B and a more suitable apology. By asking the care provider to apologise, the Council has acknowledged to Mr B there has been fault causing him an injustice. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is over the Council, so we cannot recommend any action by the care provider. We could not therefore add to what the Council has already done, and it is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Councils investigation or reach a significantly different outcome that would justify our resource to investigate. The Council has acknowledged fault causing injustice by asking the care provider to apologise to Mr B. Although the apology is poor it would not justify an investigation to ask the Council to provide an apology to Mr B. The outstanding injustice caused by the poor apology is not significant enough injustice to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman