Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding matter in a care home. It is unlikely we could achieve anything significant enough to warrant investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained through his Member of Parliament that the Council did not properly deal with his concerns about something that happened to his father, the late Mr Y, in a care home.

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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mr X’s father, Mr Y, moved into a residential care home. Soon after, there was an incident when another resident entered Mr Y’s room. I have not given more details of the incident, to protect the anonymity of Mr Y and his family. The following day, Mr Y fell. His health then worsened and sadly he died. Mr X believes the incident with the other resident contributed to Mr Y’s death.
6. The care home made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The Council noted the home had by then taken practical steps and had also contacted the Care Quality Commission (which regulates residential care) and the police. The Council says it believed the home had taken enough safeguarding measures, so it took no further action. Mr X and his family are dissatisfied. Mr X argues the Council did not deal properly with his concerns about: whether a pressure mat (which might have alerted staff to the incident) was working; whether staff responded to any alarm from the mat; whether the care home should have installed a privacy gate on Mr Y’s room sooner; and any continuing risk from the other resident’s behaviour.
7. We will not necessarily investigate a complaint just because there is an allegation a council is at fault. We will only investigate where our involvement might achieve something significant if we were to uphold the complaint.
8. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what caused or contributed to someone’s death. The main person affected was Mr Y. We cannot achieve anything for Mr Y now. I appreciate Mr X and his family found the experience distressing and remain dissatisfied with how the Council handled it. However, it is unlikely investigation by us now would achieve anything significant for Mr X and his family. The wider point about whether the care home generally is safe from incidents such as this is more properly a regulatory matter than one for the Council or the Ombudsman. I note the regulator was informed. In all the circumstances, investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve anything significant enough to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigating whether the Council was at fault.
9. Mr X says he has waited long periods for the Council to reply to correspondence. I note the Council apologised for taking five months to reply to Mr X’s formal complaint. However, 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

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything significant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman