Summary: Ms X complained about poor service during her respite stay at Heatherton House, and the care provider’s failure to escalate her concerns. She left early due to the undue distress caused. Ms X received a partial refund for the unused days since making the complaint to us. The evidence shows there was fault in the service, which the care provider acknowledged in its stage 1 response. Following our enquiries, the care provider offered a full refund for the whole stay, which is an appropriate outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the care provider’s poor service during her respite stay, particularly around meal service, bed-making and room cleaning. She ended her stay early as it caused undue distress. She wanted the care provider to apologise and offer some financial remedy. The care provider issued a partial refund for the unused days, but Ms X was not fully satisfied with the outcome.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person complaining. I have used the term fault to describe this. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the care provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the care provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
9. Ms X privately paid £1350 for a 1-week respite stay at Heatherton House. She said she experienced poor service during her stay and the provider failed to escalate her concerns when she reported them. She ended her stay early after 4 days.
10. Ms X complained to the care provider about the poor service and the provider upheld all her complaints and issued an apology in the stage 1 response. Ms X was dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint. The care provider did not provide a formal stage 2 response. Ms X said the care provider verbally agreed to issue her a full refund for her stay. But she only received a partial refund of £578.57 for the 3 nights she did not use. Ms X was not fully satisfied with the outcome and requested we continue our investigation as she would like a full refund.
11. The care provider offered a full refund for Ms X’s stay after we made enquiries during the course of our investigation.

Analysis and remedy

12. The care provider accepted that it provided poor service on all the points Ms X raised during her stay and the failure to escalate them. It issued a refund for the 3 nights that Ms X did not use. But it did not initially offer any remedy for the days Ms X used. Following our enquiries, the care provider offered to apologise and issue a full refund for Ms X’s stay. We consider this to be a reasonable remedy for the injustice caused. The care provider has since paid the remaining £771.43 to Ms X and apologised to Ms X.

Back to top

Decision

13. I find fault causing injustice. The care provider completed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman