Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council-commissioned Care Provider. There is insufficient evidence of injustice having been caused to Ms X, her father (Mr Y) or other residents.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the care her father, Mr Y, received in a care home. Her complaints included:
• a member of staff allegedly smelling of alcohol, and failure to act on this concern the first time Ms X raised it;
• conflicting information provided during telephone calls checking on Mr Y’s welfare in the lead up to his death;
• residents’ medications being on show and potentially accessible at the nurses’ station;
• Mr Y’s physical presentation not having been attended to in the lead up to his death; and
• a missing watch and casket.
2. Ms X did not say how the matter impacted her and her father. She wanted to be provided evidence of warnings given to the staff member who allegedly smelt of alcohol. She also wanted Mr Y’s watch and casket returned.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
9. Ms X first raised concerns about a member of staff allegedly smelling of alcohol on the day Mr Y passed away. She has not alleged any injustice to Mr Y resulting from this concern.
10. The Care Provider responded to Ms X’s complaint explaining there were no concerns regarding the member of staff’s competence, but it had given them a verbal warning and would review the matter. There is no evidence any fault in this area caused an injustice to Mr Y or other residents and we will not consider the matter further. We could not recommend Ms X receives evidence relating to personnel matters. It is now open to the Council to consider the matter further if it was not previously made aware of this allegation.
11. Ms X raised a complaint about conflicting information being provided during telephone calls in the lead up to Mr Y’s death. Ms X says she was told Mr Y was okay and then told 12 minutes later in a further telephone call that she should travel to the care home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Ms X by this, as she was able to travel to the care home upon receiving accurate information a short period after the first telephone call.
12. Ms X raised a concern about medications being on show and potentially accessible at the nurses’ station. There is no evidence of any injustice being caused to Mr Y or other residents due to this. Ms X rightly raised this concern with the Care Quality Commission, who can consider this as part of their next inspection. It is also now open to the Council to consider this matter further if it was not previously made aware of this allegation.
13. Ms X raised concerns that Mr Y’s hair and stubble were not tended to in the lead up to his death. The Care Provider explained it decided not to tend to Mr Y’s hair and stubble at this time due to the distress it caused him. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this respect, and insufficient evidence in any event that Mr Y was caused an injustice.
14. Part of Ms X’s complaint is a matter she has not yet raised via the Care Provider’s complaints process. This relates to a missing watch and casket that belonged to Mr Y. We cannot consider matters until the body has had the opportunity to consider and respond to them via the complaints process.
15. However, in any event this matter would be better considered as an insurance claim. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal. Should Ms X be dissatisfied with any response she receives from the Care Provider or the Council about the matter, it is open to her to seek compensation in the small claims court.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence
    Ms X, Mr Y or any other residents were caused a significant injustice by any of the matters she complains about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman