Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of respite care. This is because the Council has already accepted fault by the Care Provider it commissioned, taken action to remedy the injustice caused and recommended service improvements. Further investigation by us would not achieve a more meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X received respite care in Council-commissioned residential accommodation. Mrs X, his wife, and Mrs Y, his daughter, complained about the quality of this care. Their concerns included lack of communication, poor management of medication, poor supervision, items not having been sent to Mr X’s subsequent care home, and the Care Provider being unable to meet Mr X’s needs despite having been given accurate information to aid assessment prior to his move.
2. Mrs X and Mrs Y said Mr X’s condition deteriorated due to poor care and he was unable to return home. They said they also suffered significant distress. They wanted apologies 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X had a short period of respite in a care home. Mrs X and Mrs Y complained about the quality of that care. The Council investigated the matter via safeguarding procedures and its complaints process. It reported the concerns to the Care Quality Commission and arranged for its Service Improvement team to visit the care home.
8. The Council acknowledged several areas of fault and identified learning points for the Care Provider. These included:
• carrying out its own assessments instead of relying on other providers’ assessments;
• checking files for details of allocated social workers;
• ensuring the correct amount of medication was brought for respite stays; and
• use of appropriate terminology.
9. The Council also agreed to write off the contributions Mr X had paid for his two weeks’ respite, as well as a top-up fee his family had paid. The Council told us this had not yet been refunded to Mrs X and Mrs Y due to an error, and it has apologised to Mrs X and Mrs Y for this delay. The amount it agreed to write off amounted to £708.14.
10. It is unlikely, if we investigated the matter further, that we could add value to the investigations that have already taken place or achieve a more meaningful outcome.
11. The Council apologised in its complaint response. Mrs X and Mrs Y told us they sought apologies directly from the Care Provider. However, where we find fault in council-commissioned care, it is the Council we hold responsible. We would not therefore be able to make recommendations of the Care Provider directly.
12. We could not recommend a remedy for any injustice Mr X experienced, as he has since died. Our Guidance on Remedies explains we would normally recommend a symbolic payment of up to £500 to recognise distress. We cannot recommend significant figures of compensation in the way the courts can, and where this is a person’s aim we refer them to the courts. The Council has refunded the fees Mr X paid and the top-up his family paid. This effectively provides a symbolic payment in line with what we would likely recommend.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X and Mrs Y’s complaint because the Council has already accepted fault by the Care Provider it commissioned, taken action to remedy the injustice caused and recommended service improvements. Further investigation by us would not achieve a more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman