Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the care provider managed the care of Mrs X’s mother. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that her mother received poor care. She also complained the care provider did not handle her mother’s transfer correctly and did not follow its complaints process.
2. Mrs X said this caused distress and loss of confidence in the care provider.
3. Mrs X wants a written apology, compensation and service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mrs X’s mother lived in a property that the care provider managed. Her mother’s bedroom was exposed to a biohazard. After this occurred Mrs X moved her mother from the home.
9. Mrs X complained to the care provider after her mother had transferred from the property. She asked for compensation, an apology and service changes. She also complained about the way information was shared when her mother transferred from the care provider, and the involvement of social care.
10. The care provider investigated Mrs X’s complaint. It acknowledged the events that led to the biohazard and gave assurance that it had reminded staff about cleaning procedures to prevent a future incident. It apologised to Mrs X for the distress that it caused her. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the care provider.
11. During the transfer from the care provider, information was shared to the new home. Mrs X said this information should not have been shared. Mrs X may bring her complaint to the Information Commissioners Office who are the better placed to deal with this part of her complaint.
12. In its complaint response, the care provider explained to Mrs X why it consulted a social worker before her mother’s transfer. The care provider was not required to involve a social worker in the transfer, but it did so for best practice.
13. The care provider said it would not give the £750 compensation Mrs X requested. It said that it had waived the notice period fees as a gesture of goodwill. I have considered our guidance on remedies and the amount requested is beyond what we may recommend in this instance. We would not be able to achieve the outcome that Mrs X seeks. Mrs X may seek compensation in a court if this is her primary objective.
14. The care provider apologised for delays in the complaint response to Mrs X. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint as we could not add anything further to the investigation already carried out by the care provider. Also, we could not achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unable to achieve the outcome she wants, and we could not add anything further to the investigation already carried out.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman