Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care and support his late father, Mr C received from his Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the care his late father, Mr C received from his Care Provider and lies and deceit he experienced from Mr C’s Social Worker. Mr B says Mr C was deliberately and criminally neglected by his Care Provider. Mr B says Mr C was not visited by his GP, refused family visits, told he had contracted the Covid-19 virus but later discharged from hospital saying there was nothing wrong with him. Mr B says his Care Provider failed to prescribe Mr C with appropriate medication until threatened with a private GP. Mr B says Mr C was not given oxygen or fluids and died a week later of an avoidable blood clot due to lack of care and monitoring. Mr B says the Care Provider’s and Social Worker’s actions has resulted in a decline in his own health, which has affected his business and caused financial loss. Mr B says the Care Provider should be closed down and those responsible for Mr C’s negligence should be prosecuted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Mr B’s complaint and allegations under its responsibility for Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults. It advised Mr B the police were also included in the safeguarding investigation. It apologised for the delay in responding to his concerns and explained this was because it was waiting for the police to conclude its investigation.
6. The Council explained what action the GP surgery took including dates of telephone conversations and video consultations but found no evidence of any safeguarding concerns around the GP practices. It confirmed Mr C’s GP and Consultant considered what was best for him and discussed available options with Mr C’s Power of Attorney who accepted the advice. It says a privately arranged GP visited Mr C on 13 January and agreed with his treatment plan, including the prescribed medication. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation and further investigation is unlikely to make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants. We cannot investigate the actions of medical health professionals.
7. Mr B says Mr C was denied oxygen and water in the last few days of his life. The Council confirmed records show Mr C was offered regular drinks but he often declined them, however he was given appropriate mouth care to ensure he was comfortable. It also advised of the dates the Care Provider contacted the GP about Mr C’s reduced fluid intake and SATS to discuss concerns and seek medical advice. It confirmed when Mr C was admitted to hospital on 21 January Mr C did not require oxygen or a drip. Medical staff said Mr C did not need hospital treatment and discharged him back to his care home the following day. The Council confirmed staff followed up family concerns about an IV drip and oxygen with the hospital who confirmed he did not require either. We cannot investigate the actions of healthcare professionals.
8. The Council has provided Mr B with information about Mr C’s care and dates of contact with medical professionals. We could not add to this and could not make the finding Mr B wants.
9. Mr B says care staff were rude and dismissive towards him. Mr B perceived this to be the case and it is unlikely further investigation could achieve a different outcome given this was his perception. Mr B says he was lied to and deceived by Mr C’s social Worker. The Council says records show the Social Worker agreed to keep Mr B informed and took advice from his GP regarding the risks involved in moving Mr C. The risks and benefits were to be discussed in a multi-disciplinary Team meeting on 27 January, but Mr B asked that it be cancelled. It is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman could make a finding that Mr B was lied to and deceived by Council staff.
10. Mr B says Mr C was deliberately and criminally neglected. The safeguarding investigation found no evidence that Mr C had been neglected or that Mr B had been deceived and lied to. It found no evidence that incompetence by staff was covered up.
11. The Coroner did not make a finding of neglect and said there were no signs of malnutrition, dehydration, or pressure sores. The Council says the Coroner agreed with the GP that Mr C appeared well cared for up until he died and recorded his death as ‘natural causes’. If the Coroner had been concerned about any aspects of Mr C’s death they could have requested further investigation. The Ombudsman could not say Mr C was neglected and Mr B’s allegation of deliberate and criminal neglect would be for a court to determine.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman