Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council-commissioned Care Provider having arranged for Mrs Y to receive a vaccination. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Care Provider vaccinated her grandmother, Mrs Y, against COVID-19 without consent from her attorneys. She said Mrs Y had declined vaccinations for five years prior due to significant side effects.
2. Miss X said following the vaccination, Mrs Y became unwell with flu-like symptoms and required hospitalisation. Miss X said this caused Mrs Y and her family significant distress. She said Mrs Y took four weeks to recover and experienced a decline in her dementia symptoms during that time. Miss X wanted service improvements, consequences for responsible staff, a review of the Care Provider’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating and compensation.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council or care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) 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. The decision to vaccinate Mrs Y was ultimately one that was made by NHS staff. This is not an administrative function of the Council or Care Provider and we do not have any power to investigate it. Miss X’s complaints about the decision being made without consulting Mrs Y’s attorneys or following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is one that would be for the NHS complaints process and then the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
8. We could investigate the Care Provider’s actions. The Care Provider acknowledged, via its internal complaints process, that it had provided consent to the GP practice to vaccinate Mrs Y without having first discussed the matter with Mrs Y’s family. If we investigated, we would likely say this was fault.
9. However, we could not say whether Mrs Y’s subsequent illness was due to her having received the vaccine. In any event, given that the NHS acted as decision-maker in this instance, we could not say the Care Provider’s actions were the cause of the claimed injustice.
10. The Care Provider addressed the matter with its staff and it has agreed to update Mrs Y’s care plans. We could not achieve anything further of significance if we investigated this complaint. We cannot recommend disciplinary action against individual members of staff, and we have no power to change a care provider’s CQC rating. There is not a justification to recommend a financial remedy in this case, because there is insufficient evidence that any fault by the Care Provider caused injustice for the reasons explained above.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman