Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person using the service, who is the person most affected, has died and so we can provide no remedy for any impact on them caused by fault of the Council, or care provider on its behalf. The Council has considered and responded to the complaint issues through its safeguarding, quality monitoring and complaints processes. It has apologised to the family for the impact on them and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we could add to this or achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to provide satisfactory care to her father, Mr C. The Council delayed investigating Ms B’s concerns while it completed safeguarding investigations. Ms B says she and her family have been distressed and emotionally drained and feel the Council is covering up something bad.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr C has died, so the Ombudsman cannot provide any remedy to him for any impact caused by any failures in care arranged by the Council.
7. The Council did at first delay responding to Ms B’s complaint, explaining it would respond after it had completed safeguarding. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in the Council’s decision. The Council has since responded to the complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
8. The Council, and care provider who cared for Mr C on the Council’s behalf, have both apologised to Ms B and her family for the distress caused by poor communication and failures in care.
9. The Council has dealt with care failures through its safeguarding process and working with the care provider through its contract monitoring quality team. Safeguarding is a process to prevent harm and reduce the risk of abuse or neglect to adults with care and support needs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Council has considered and responded to the complaint issues through its safeguarding, quality monitoring and complaints processes. It has apologised for the impact and taken action to improve future service. It is unlikely we could add to this or achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman