Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Mrs Y by a domiciliary care agency and the Council’s safeguarding involvement. We cannot achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X and we could not add to the previous investigations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about substandard domiciliary care that led to Mrs Y, his mother, being admitted to hospital with severe dehydration. He says the carers did not seek medical intervention when needed. Mr X says the incident has caused him distress and caused Mrs Y, who died shortly afterwards, trauma. He wants the Council to stop using the care provider, acknowledge fault, apologise and donate a meaningful sum to charity. He wants further interviews of professionals involved at the time and checks into the qualifications of the carers involved.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y had domiciliary care at home from a care provider. Mr X says the provider did not seek medical attention as necessary when Mrs Y’s health deteriorated, and Mrs Y subsequently passed away in hospital.
6. The Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry and the coroner’s court held an inquest into Mrs Y’s death. The coroner concluded “It is unclear whether earlier admission to hospital would, on the balance of probabilities, have prevented
   [Mrs Y’s] death”.
7. Mr X says the Council and care provider reported many inconsistencies to the coroner. Mr X raised those issues during the inquest and so the coroner had the opportunity to consider this before coming to a decision. We could not add to the investigations that have already taken place by the Council and the coroner. We could not provide the clarity Mr X seeks, nor could we overturn the coroner’s decision in any event.
8. The Council accepted it had included errors in its safeguarding enquiry form and has apologised to Mr X for this. The care provider also acknowledged that its carers did not follow the correct process when Mrs Y required medical intervention. It has taken measures to address the issue with its staff.
9. The Council offered Mr X £200 to recognise the distress the matter had caused him. Mr X says this is an insult and he considers £20,000 to be a more meaningful amount to represent the impact the events had on him and his mother.
10. When we recommend a payment, it is often a modest, symbolic amount. It is not our role to award compensation, and the courts are for people where this is a primary goal. We could not recommend a financial remedy of £20,000. Any injustice Mrs Y experienced could not now be remedied, as she has died. £200 is within the range of modest, symbolic amounts that we would likely recommend to recognise Mr X’s distress in the circumstances. Therefore, we would not achieve a different outcome if we investigated this complaint.
11. We also could not compel the Council to stop using the care provider, nor could we become involved in personnel matters such as qualification status of carers.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigations that have already taken place and we could not provide a meaningful remedy for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman