Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Care Provider the Council commissioned to care for Mrs X’s husband. The Council has already accepted the Care Provider was at fault and made suitable recommendations. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more meaningful.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the care home where her husband, Mr X, stayed. She said the Care Provider issued notice in retaliation after she had complained, without following proper procedure. She said the Care Provider sent no carers to support Mr X on the day of his move. She also complained it did not respond to her complaint.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused distress for Mr X, her and the wider family. She said Mr X deteriorated after moving and died shortly afterwards. She wanted the Care Provider to be transparent and accept fault

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained about the care home where her husband was staying. She says the Care Provider then issued notice to Mr X, claiming this was for other reasons including being unable to meet his needs. Mrs X believes the notice was in retaliation for her having complained.
8. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint. It responded explaining the reasons for Mr X’s notice having been served, which it did not dispute. Mrs X does not agree with the reasons for the Care Provider having served notice to Mr X, but this does not mean the Care Provider was at fault. There is insufficient evidence the Care Provider served notice in retaliation to Mrs X’s complaints.
9. The Council’s complaint response identified several areas of fault in the actions of the Care Provider. It said, for example, the Care Provider:
• had not properly communicated the reasons for Mr X’s eviction with Mrs X;
• did not adhere to the notice period outlined in its contract;
• did not respond in a person-centred way when Mrs X asked it to delay Mr X’s eviction until after the Christmas period; and
• held inaccurate and inconsistent information in Mr X’s care plans.
10. The Council said Mrs X had been caused confusion and heightened emotions. It apologised for the distress she had been caused and made several recommendations to the Care Provider.
11. If we investigated this complaint, we could not add anything meaningful to the investigation the Council already carried out. We could not say the Care Provider caused Mr X’s deterioration and subsequent death. The Council’s complaint response clearly sets out the areas where there was fault, has made suitable recommendations and provided a meaningful apology in line with our guidance.
12. The Council has provided a suitable remedy already for the injustice we would likely decide had been caused if we investigated. I am satisfied with the action the Council has already taken, and we will not investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has already accepted the Care Provider was at fault and made suitable recommendations. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more meaningful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman