Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home’s poor communication in relation to his wife, Mrs X’s, respite care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Home failed to properly communicate with him in relation to his wife, Mrs X’s, respite care and additional support it said she required. Mr X said the matter caused him distress. He wants the Care Home to cancel the care charges for the additional support.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X resided at the Care Home for four weeks. Mr X said during his wife’s stay at the Care Home, the Care Home invited him to attend a meeting. He said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of Mrs X having a long-term placement at the Care Home. However, Mr X said the Care Home informed him during the meeting that it was concerned about his wife’s behaviour which was posing a risk to herself and the other residents. Mr X said the Care Home had not told him before the meeting that his wife’s behaviour was causing a risk.
6. In addition, Mr X said during the meeting, the Care Home said Mrs X required one-to-one supervision. He said the Care Home pressured him into agreeing to the additional support. Mr X said the Care Home did not provide alternative options in how it could support his wife.
7. The Care Provider investigated Mr X’s concerns and responded to him. It said:
• the Care Home told Mr X informally and prior to the meeting about Mrs X’s behaviour and how it was posing a risk to herself and other residents;
• the Care Home did not pressure Mr X into agreeing to the additional support. Following the meeting, it sent Mr X a summary of the meeting with a plan of support for Mrs X going forward. It said before introducing one-to-one supervision, it would trial another approach to reduce her behaviour which posed a risk;
• Mr X wrote to the Care Home the day after following the meeting and agreed to the plan of support going forward; and
• the Care Home said the one-to-one supervision was a temporary measurement until Mrs X was more settled in the Care Home. It had planned to review the additional support regularly, should Mrs X have extended her placement.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider. The Care Home was transparent with Mr X about concerns it had with Mrs X’s behaviour. Although the initial agenda of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of Mrs X having a long-term placement, I cannot criticise the Care Home for addressing other matters as it was appropriate to do so.
9. The Care Home told Mr X it could provide additional support to Mrs X however, it could try an alternative approach beforehand. This showed the Care Home made reasonable efforts to avoid the need for one-to-one support. Furthermore, Mr X did later agree to the additional support.
10. I note Mr X said the Care Home did not tell him about concerns it had with his wife’s behaviour before the meeting. We will also not investigate this as any injustice of Mr X not knowing before the meeting is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman