Summary: Mr X complained a residential care home restricted access to his friend. Mr X also complained the Council failed to carry out actions promised in January 2020. Mr X says this is causing him to be pushed out of his friend’s life. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the care home staff have:
1. Restricted access to his friend, Ms Y, in a residential care home.
2. Not given Ms Y documents about her Community Treatment Order and prevented him from attended meetings.
2. Mr X says the care home is trying to push him out of Ms Y’s life.
3. Mr X also complained the Council failed to follow through on actions promised in January 2020.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the care home under 1a). I have also investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council failing to follow through on actions promised in January 2020.
5. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint under 1b) about the Community Treatment Order. I have explained this within the section of this decision titled “Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council and care home questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the response.
10. The Council accepted the draft decision. Mr X disputed the draft decision. I considered Mr X’s comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care Home Visitors Policy

11. Ms Y’s care home has a visitors policy applicable to relatives, friends, advocates and professional visitors. This policy says the care home allows these people to visit at any reasonable time but has rules for visitation.
12. All residents can refuse visitation and the care home will respect the residents wishes.
13. The care home has a duty to protect its residents and can also refuse visitation or place conditions on visitation if:
• The care home thinks a visitor poses a risk to the safety of its residents or staff.
• The care home believes the visitor poses a risk to the running of its service.
• The care home believes visits would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the resident.

Background

14. Ms Y was placed in a private residential care home by the Council. Before her residence in the care home, Ms Y lived with Mr X. Ms Y’s primary advocates for her health and well-being are her sisters. Ms Y has capacity to make her own decisions.

What Happened

15. The care home regional manager contacted Mr X to discuss concerns the care home raised about him in February 2018. After this conversation, the regional manager wrote to Mr X on 13 February 2018. The regional manager said:
• Mr X had not been banned from the care home.
• Ms Y does not always wish to speak when Mrs X calls and the care home will act in line with her wishes.
• They cannot discuss the care and treatment of Ms Y with Mr X unless Ms Y consents.
• Mr X needs to work with the staff at the care home to preserve an appropriate line of communication.
16. The care home allowed Mr X to visit the care home up to two times per week.
17. Mr X tried to get Ms Y to sign a document which would make him the primary advocate for Ms Y in March 2019. This prompted the regional manager to write to Mr X on 2 April 2019. The regional manager said:
• The care home would not advise Ms Y to sign this form.
• The care home allowed Mr X to visit Ms Y as a social visitor.
• Mr X’s “behaviour and attitude” towards staff at the care home was “unreasonable”. This was causing difficulty for the staff to do their jobs.
• The care home would not share Ms Y’s confidential information with him without her consent.
• Mr X should stop calling head office as the number and substance of the contacts was inappropriate. Mr X could raise complaints in writing to the regional manager herself.
• If Mr X’s actions continued to disrupt the service, they would need to consider his suitability to continue visiting the home.
18. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) wrote to Mr X to advise it would no longer respond to Mr X’s complaints. The CQC said this was because Mr X raised fifty-nine complaints with the CQC since February 2017 and it had found Ms Y to be receiving suitable care and treatment on each enquiry it made. It said Mr X had also been verbally aggressive and threatening to staff.
19. Ms Y visited Mr X at his home in November 2019 and did not return to the care home for three days. Mr X says the care home banned him from visiting Ms Y because of this. Mr X complained to the Council.
20. The Council met Mr X on 29 January 2020 to discuss his complaint. The Council wrote to Mr X after this meeting to confirm the outcome. The Council said:
• Mr X could visit Ms Y twice a week again including on weekends.
• The Council would provide details of advocacy services to Ms Y.
• It had written a letter to the clinical service lead. This confirmed Ms Y wanted to see Mr X, the care should tell Mr X and Ms Y of meetings about Ms Y and the care home needed to update the care plan to reflect this.
• It would complete a multidisciplinary review over the suitability of Ms Y going to live with Mr X.
• It would complete a quality assurance visit at the care home to assess the working and living environment.
• It considered the complaint closed on the back of the agreed-on actions.
21. After this meeting, Mr X visited the home on ten occasions until March 2020.
22. The Council completed a quality assurance visit at the care home on 13 February 2020 and began a multidisciplinary review of Ms Y’s viability to live with Mr X.
23. Mr X was involved in an incident where a member of staff was physically assaulted in March 2020.
24. The care home stopped all visitors in March 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
25. In July 2020 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
26. The regional manager wrote to Mr X on 19 August 2020 to tell him that he could not attend the care home without an appointment. The regional manager said this was because Mr X repeatedly made unfounded allegations about staff and was involved in the incident where a member of staff was physically assaulted.
27. In August 2020, the Council contacted Mr X to ask to view his property to complete a risk assessment to decide its suitability for Ms Y to live there. Mr X advised he needed to complete some works at the property before this visit. The Council contacted Mr X twice in September 2020 but received the same response.
28. The care home allowed visitors again from August 2020 until October 2020 when lockdown ended and before the government heightened Covd-19 restrictions in the area. Mr X visited the home seven times during this time. Mr X has confirmed he has been allowed to visit the care home once per week.

Analysis

29. Private care homes should allow visitors in line with their own policies. Ms Y’s care home’s policy says it will only restrict access should a visitor present a risk to the safety or wellbeing of residents, the safety of staff or the running of its service.
30. The Council provided evidence of the care home manager sending warning letters to Mr X about his conduct since the start of 2018. The care home manager warned Mr X that he needs to co-operate with staff at the care home to preserve visitation rights.
31. The care home banned Mr X on two occasions. Following Ms Y not returning to the care home for several days after a visit to Mr X’s home. And, after an incident with a staff member who was physically assaulted.
32. The care home has acted in line with its policy by restricting Mr X’s access on both occasions. The first incident presented concerns for Ms Y’s wellbeing due to her extended and unauthorised absence from the home. The second incident presented safety concerns for the care home’s staff.
33. On both occasions, the care home has reinstated Mr X’s visitation rights after a short duration. The care home has only restricted contact between Mr X and Ms Y when it had grounds to do so and acted in line with its policy. I do not find fault with the restrictions placed on Mr X’s visitation.
34. In January 2020, the Council promised to complete certain actions to resolve Mr X’s complaint. The Ombudsman would expect the Council to carry out these actions.
35. The Council provided me with evidence it has carried out the agreed actions.
36. The care home allowed Mr X to visit Ms Y in the home from January 2020 to March 2020. Neither the Council nor care home is at fault for Mr X not being able to visit because of Covid-19 related restrictions.
37. The Council completed a quality assurance visit in February 2020. The Council also started a multidisciplinary review. The first step of this review is to complete a risk assessment of Mr X’s property. Mr X has not allowed the Council to visit his property. Mr X needs to work with the Council to move this process forwards.
38. I do not find fault with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

40. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the care home not giving Ms Y documents about her Community Treatment Order. This is because Ms Y still has capacity and her primary advocates are her sisters, not Mr X.
41. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says a person must be assumed to have capacity unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Such a person has the power to make decisions that may not seem to be in their own best interest. Making a bad decision does not mean a person lacks capacity.
42. Ms Y has not consented to this complaint so I could not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. I could only investigate the parts of Mr X’s complaint which present a potential personal injustice to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman