Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council considered a safeguarding alert she raised regarding her late husband, Mr B. This is because the Council has apologised for any distress caused to her and we could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. Sadly, Mr B is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might now uncover.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained to the Council’s safeguarding hub in October 2020 about concerns she had relating to the care her late husband Mr B received. Mrs B did not receive a response and complained again in May 2021. Mrs B says she should be financially compensated for defamation of her character. Mrs B complained:

• the Care Provider wrongly referred to blood tests which should have been urine tests, and dates were incorrect;
• urine test results were sent to the wrong surgery;
• when Mr B’s belongings were returned social distancing and PPE requirements were not adhered to;
• Mr B suffered a number of unwitnessed falls;
• the Care Provider’s record keeping was poor, communication about unwitnessed falls was poor and staff were rude;
• The outcome of the safeguarding investigation was recorded as being ‘malicious -unfounded’.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaints. It apologised Mrs B found the ‘malicious-unfounded’ terminology, which was a pre-set option from its computer-generated form, offensive. It said following Mrs B’s complaint its social care recording system has been upgraded and such language has been removed. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. The Council has apologised and removed the offensive language from the system.
7. The Council apologised that calls and messages were not responded to and said this was unacceptable. It said it will raise this point with staff in supervision and team meetings. It also apologised Mrs B felt the need to terminate a call with a member of staff. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
8. The Council has apologised for its failures and Mrs B’s experiences when communicating with it. Its safeguarding investigation found evidence of poor recording keeping and says it will make recommendations to the Care Provider to improve this. It will share its findings with its commissioners to ensure it contract monitoring arrangements strongly feature record keeping. We could not add to this or make a different finding.
9. The Council confirmed the letter containing Mr B’s urine test results was sent to the wrong GP surgery and returned to his consultant. We could not add to this point and cannot comment on matters relating to the medical healthcare professionals.
10. The Council says Mr B had a number of unwitnessed falls at the home and a referral was made to the Falls Team in order to reduce the risk. It says records show bed and chair sensors were provided and his mattress removed to reduce the risk of injury. We will not investigate this point. Sadly Mr B is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover.
11. Mrs B complained when collecting Mr B’s belongings staff did not follow PPE or social distancing guidance. The Council investigated this point and acknowledged Mrs B had experienced a difficult position but could not say what had actually happened. It confirmed contracts with its Clinical Commissioning Group were regularly monitored for compliance regarding PPE and Infection Control. We could not add to this point even if we investigated.
12. Mrs B says she should be paid compensation for defamation of her character. Defamation is properly for the courts to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has apologised for any distress caused to her from its computer-generated form and we could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. Sadly, Mr B is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might now uncover

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman