Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s decision to place restrictions on Ms Y’s visits to see her partner, Mr Y. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Care Provider has limited her mother’s (Ms Y’s) visits to her partner (Mr Y) in a care home, saying she needs to be accompanied, and declined flexibility due to staffing. Mrs X did not believe this was in the best interests of Ms Y or Mr Y, and said the restrictions had impacted their relationship and caused inconvenience for Mrs X. She wanted the decision to be reviewed. She also wanted the Care Provider to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. 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:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s complaint is about the Care Provider placing restrictions on Ms Y’s visits to her partner Mr Y, who has recently moved into the care home. I have not considered the complaint insofar as it affects Mr Y, as Mrs X is not the appropriate representative for him. Should Mr Y’s family wish to make a complaint about any injustice caused to him, it is open to them to complain to us separately.
7. The Care Provider explained Ms Y could visit Mr Y unaccompanied for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon at this time. It explained it had considered this decision with Mr Y’s family and social worker and they had agreed the restrictions were in Mr Y’s best interests. It provided its reasons and explained to Mrs X the restrictions it had imposed were temporary and open to review after a settling-in period.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to say a Care Provider’s decision is wrong where it has been properly made. While I have not considered the decision-making about Mr Y’s best interests in any detail, as we are not considering a complaint on his behalf, the communication I have seen shows the Care Provider has given considered reasons for the current restrictions, and these are open to review. Its priority must be Mr Y, as the person in its care. Mrs X may disagree with the Care Provider’s decision, but that in itself does not mean it is a decision made with fault. There is insufficient evidence of any fault in the Care Provider’s actions.
9. If we investigated this complaint further, we would therefore not be likely to achieve anything meaningful. We would not recommend the decision be revoked where there is not evidence of fault in decision-making. It remains open to Mrs X to continue communicating with the Care Provider as Mr Y settles in, for further decision-making to continue to account for the impact restrictions could have on Mr Y’s and Ms Y’s relationship.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman