Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that her husband was neglected by his carer in 2016. This is because he could not add to the Council’s responses or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants even if he investigated.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complains about the care given to her husband in 2016 when he fell and was admitted to hospital with a broken hip. Mrs A says the retrospective safeguarding investigation should have found Mr A had been neglected by his carer who fell asleep on the sofa instead of caring for him. Mrs A says the carer should not have gone home when Mr A was at the hospital with his daughter and should have stayed until the shift ended. Mrs A is also unhappy that the Council alleged she had spent Mr A’s money on herself. Mrs A says she wants the Council to make a finding of neglect and compensate her for the failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I spoke to Mrs A and considered the information and documentation she and the Council provided. I sent Mrs A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs A complained in August 2018 about the care Mr A received in 2016 when he fell downstairs and was taken to hospital. Mrs A says the carer should have noticed Mr A wandering around upstairs attempting to lift furniture and says the Council’s safeguarding investigation should have found he had been neglected.
5. Following Mrs A’s complaint in 2018, the Council undertook a retrospective safeguarding investigation into the events of the evening in November 2016. It said:

During the commissioned shift, [Mr A] fell down the stairs and was admitted to hospital. He was x-rayed, medically cleared and discharged in the early hours of the morning. [Mr A] was re-admitted following a further two falls at home later the following morning.

6. The Ombudsman could not make a different finding even if he investigated. Mr A was taken to hospital following a fall and discharged later as medically fit.
7. The Council investigated Mrs A’s concerns about the actions of the carer looking after Mr A that night. It found the staff member had already completed a full day shift so should not have undertaken another full night care shift. It said the member of staff should have clarified whether he would be required to complete his shift following Mr A’s discharge from hospital and found no evidence the carer had offered to stay the full length of the shift. It recommended the care provider review its policies and procedures regarding staff working hours and when attending hospital with customers. The care provider confirmed it had updated its policies and will review through staff training. The Ombudsman could not achieve any more than this even if he investigated.
8. Mrs A says she was accused of spending Mr A’s money on herself. The Council sent a letter to Mrs A’s daughter who is attorney for Mr A’s for finances, requesting payment for Mr A’s care fees. It says it was ‘concerned to note when speaking to Mrs A that she had spent some of Mr A’s state /occupational pension on herself including the purchase of some household items’.
9. I have not seen any evidence that the Council has accused Mrs A of spending Mr A’s money only of its concerns about Mrs A saying she had. The Ombudsman could not say Mrs A has suffered significant injustice because of this concern.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he could not add to the Council’s responses or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants even if he investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman