Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the late Mrs X’s respite stay at a care home in 2024 and it not allowing them to comment on an external report. It is unlikely investigation by us could add to the care provider and safeguarding investigations nor reach a different outcome. We cannot now remedy any injustice to Mrs X, and the personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of is not sufficiently significant to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X is the husband of the late Mrs X. Mrs X had a neurodegenerative condition and died in February 2025. She went to Blenheim Care Home for a two-week respite stay. Mr X complains the care home:
1. failed to provide proper respite care to Mrs X;
2. sent an incorrect report to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which they were not able to comment on.
2. Mr X says the matter had a huge psychological impact on Mrs X. He says she refused to go into further respite stays after her experiences and hesitated before going into a hospice. In letters to the care home, Mr and Mrs X ask for compensation for her distress and suffering and want staff to receive training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. 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:

• 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; or
• the injustice we can remedy is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The core of Mr X’s complaint is about poor care provided to Mrs X. In response to the complaint, the Care Provider investigated. They reviewed the care documents for Mrs X’s stay and interviewed staff who were involved in providing that care. The home responded to the complaint, setting out its findings, based on the complaint received and the information it had gathered. The local authority also did a safeguarding investigation.
7. The care firm and the local authority have conducted investigations based on the relevant available evidence about Mrs X’s care during her respite stay. An investigation by us would not add to those already done by the care firm and the local authority here. No additional information or evidence would be available to us which has not already been considered by the care home’s investigation and the authority’s safeguarding investigation. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome regarding Mrs X’s care and the impacts on her. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
8. We recognise Mr X’s respite would have been disturbed by contacts he received during Mrs X’s stay at the home and the experience made Mrs X more reluctant to go into another placement. But the injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of is insufficient to warrant us investigating. Any failures in the Care Provider’s delivery of Mrs X’s care would have been primarily causing injustice to her. We cannot now provide a remedy to Mrs X because she has died, so there would be no worthwhile outcome an investigation by us would now achieve. We will not investigate where an investigation cannot provide a remedy because the person who could have been affected has died.
9. We note the Care Provider and Mr X have referred the care issues complained of to the CQC. Mr X says he and Mrs X did not have the opportunity to challenge the care home’s version of events as set out in their report to the CQC. Even if Mr and Mrs X had such a role in the home’s CQC reporting process and missed out on that opportunity, there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by this issue to warrant an investigation. It is open to Mr X to make any representations to the CQC he wishes to on the matter. It would be for the CQC to assess and retain any information he sends in, to be used as its staff members consider appropriate in appraisals and investigations of the care home.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it is unlikely an investigation by us could add to the previous investigations by the care provider and local authority; and
• it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome; and
• the injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of is not sufficiently significant to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman