Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned Care Home and the care it delivered to his mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s commissioned Care Home and the care it delivered to his mother, Mrs Y. He said his mother’s care needs were not being met and it caused him distress. He wants the Care Home to acknowledge it acted with fault and provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said since Mrs Y moved into the Care Home, staff have not supported her with accessing the garden. Mr X said it was important for his mother to have access to the garden to support her health. The Care Provider responded to Mr X’s concerns and said his mother has access to the garden and she visits the garden when the weather is suitable.
6. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint as there is a lack of supporting evidence that Mrs Y does not access the garden. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council’s Care Home.
7. Mr X said the Care Home failed to consider his mother’s dietary requirements. On one occasion, staff gave Mrs Y lamb as part of her dinner. Mr X said his mother does not like lamb. The Care Provider said it was not aware of this beforehand, however, since it became aware of it, it has met this specific dietary requirement.
8. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint as a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Care Provider accepted it was not aware of this dietary requirement but since it has been aware, it has met that requirement. This was appropriate.
9. Mr X said the Care Home has ignored his contributions about his mother’s care. The Care Provider said it previously investigated Mr X’s concerns and addressed with management to ensure staff were mindful of relative’s feelings. It said staff were ensuring to get a balance of views from Mr X and Mrs Y’s Lasting Power of Attorney.
10. We will also not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because the Care Provider has already addressed the matter with staff. This was appropriate. A further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. As we are not investigating Mr X’s complaint, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and so we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman