Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled concerns about a care home. Any complaint about the Council’s safeguarding responsibilities is late and it is unlikely we could achieve anything meaningful on other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his concerns about a care home in its area.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I also read documents from the Council (mainly copy complaint correspondence). I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The complaint originated in events in 2018. Mr X’s friend Mr Y had health problems including dementia, meaning he could not go out alone safely. He lived with his wife, Mrs Y. In March 2018, Mrs Y privately arranged for Mr Y to spend two weeks in a care home in the Council’s area while she had medical treatment. Mr Y was able to get out of the home without staff noticing. The police found him and returned him to the home. Sadly, Mr X has since died.
7. Mr X first complained to the organisation that runs the home. In June 2019, 15 months after the events affecting Mr Y, Mr X contacted the Council. He believed the Council had responsibility for inspecting and licensing care homes in its area. That was mistaken. The Council has no role in inspecting or enforcing care home standards generally, except where it has contracted with a home to provide care for someone, which it had not in this case.
8. The Council’s only role where it has not arranged someone’s care in a care home is to consider whether safeguarding action is needed if it learns of a situation where an adult might have been at risk. In October 2018, Mr X said he understood a safeguarding referral had been made to Council about Mr Y getting out of the care home. So Mr X was aware of the potential safeguarding element then. If he had any concerns about how the Council handled the safeguarding aspect, he could have complained to us within 12 months of October 2018. He did not. I do not see good reason for the Ombudsman now to pursue any concern about how the Council followed its safeguarding responsibilities.
9. More broadly, Mr X argues Council should have some general responsibility for the actions of care homes in its area and he is dissatisfied it has not done more about his concerns about Mr Y’s experience. As I have explained, the Council does not have such powers. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the regulator of standards in care homes. Mr X and the Council both told the CQC about incidents affecting Mr Y in the home in the Council’s area and in another care home elsewhere. It is for the CQC, not the Council or the Ombudsman, to decide what, if anything, to do about those matters.
10. The Council also contacted the local care home about what had happened to Mr Y and said its commissioning section would look at Mr X’s concerns, although the Council apparently had no contractual dealings with this home. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with the home. However, as the Council has no enforcement powers in this area and as the CQC, which does have some powers, is aware of the matter, I do not consider we would be likely to achieve anything meaningful by investigating the Council’s actions.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his communications and formal complaint. I note the Council apologised for some problems. For the reason given in paragraph 4, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of communications and the formal complaint if we are not investigating the underlying substantive matter. Even if we did investigate the Council’s complaint-handling, it is also unlikely we would recommend more than the apology the Council offered. For these reasons, we shall not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s communications and complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is mainly because investigation of the central points is unlikely to achieve anything meaningful and any complaint about the handling of the safeguarding matter is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman