Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s safeguarding and complaint investigations, which have achieved service improvements and an apology to the complainant. So, an Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Care Provider gave her husband, Mr E, poor care. Ms D says the Council failed to act on her concerns. Ms D believes this led to a deterioration in Mr E’s health. Ms D feels angry and does not want anyone else to suffer the same.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. Mr E has died, we have accepted Ms D as a suitable representative to raise concerns about the care he received in his lifetime.
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr E went to Nether Hall Care Home (the Care Provider) initially for a short stay, but then stayed longer while the Council was assessing his long-term needs and trying to find a suitable placement. The Council accepts the Care Provider was not a suitable long-term placement and was struggling to meet Mr E’s needs. However, the Ombudsman would not be able to decide the care led to a decline in health.
8. The Council has a duty as a safeguarding authority to adults in its area who have health and social care needs, to protect them from abuse or neglect. The Council has completed a safeguarding investigation. The Council found some failures in the service provided to Mr E and has agreed areas for improvement with the Care Provider.
9. The Council has apologised to Ms D for the failures in its service; delays and lack of communication and will share learning with its staff.
10. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome.
11. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should never fall. The Council found the Care Provider’s records were not consistent, which made it difficult to find out what care was provided and how Mr E was presenting. This also made planning long term care more difficult. The Care Provider must maintain a complete and contemporaneous record for each service user, including a record of the care and treatment provided to the service user and of decisions taken in relation to the care and treatment provided. The Care Provider’s failure to complete full records for Mr E may be a breach of the good governance fundamental standard.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the Council’s investigation or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.
13. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman