Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged residential care. There is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. The resident has died so we cannot provide him with a remedy for any poor care.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Care Provider failed in the care of his relative, Mr C. Mr B says the Care Provider’s administration is inefficient, causing stress, time and trouble. Mr B would like a financial payment and the care home to be put on an improvement plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr C lived at a care home run by The Abbeyfield Society (the Care Provider) until he died. Mr B raised concerns during Mr C’s lifetime about his care support. Mr B became frustrated at the way the Care Provider handled his concerns, for example not telephoning to discuss, and typographical errors in correspondence. But also, that he did not see an improvement in Mr C’s care support, for example nails still not cut.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. The Ombudsman can provide Mr C with no remedy for the impact of any poor care he may have received. There is nothing to suggest a serious impact that would justify an investigation.
9. Mr B has had some stress, time and trouble complaining about the issues. The Care Provider has apologised to Mr B for communication errors. This is enough to acknowledge the impact, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything significantly different that would justify our resource.
10. Mr B is also unhappy with the way the Care Provider dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
11. Mr B thinks the care home should be on an improvement plan. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should never fall. The Care Provider should keep full and accurate records of the care it has provided and accepts this was not always the case. Its failure in this area may be breaches of the fundamental standards. If the CQC finds a care home requires improvement it will agree an action plan.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the outstanding injustice not remedied by the Care Provider’s apology is not enough to justify our involvement.
13. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman