Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son’s care provider gave him the level of care needed. She said her complaint about poor care resulted in his eviction from a placement with the Hollybank Trust. The Clinical Commissioning Group and the Hollybank Trust have not yet had the opportunity to respond to Mrs X’s complaint, therefore, the Ombudsmen have discontinued their investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son’s care provider, the Hollybank Trust, gave him the level of care needed. She said her complaints about poor care resulted in his eviction by the Hollybank Trust. She also complained about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns while he was a resident.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015, these complaints have been considered by a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. The Ombudsmen will not generally investigate a complaint unless they are satisfied the matter has been brought to the relevant organisation’s attention and that organisation has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974 section 26(5), as amended and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(5)).
5. However, in the case of joint complaints (i.e. those deemed suitable for investigation by the Joint Working Team operated by both PHSO and LGSCO), if one organisation has investigated and replied to the complaint but another organisation has not, the Ombudsmen may decide to exercise their discretion to investigate the complaint against both (or all) organisations, so that the issues can be considered in the round.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the Council’s complaint response.
7. Mrs X, the Council, the Hollybank Trust and the CCG had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs X’s son Y has complex care needs. In February 2015, after regular respite breaks, Y became a permanent resident at the Hollbank Trust. Y turned 18 in December 2016 and the funding for his care transferred from the Council to the CCG.
9. In 2017, Mrs X complained to the Council about the care being provided to Y. She said he was not receiving the:
• one-to-one support needed while awake; and
• two-to-one support to meet his personal care needs.
10. She complained the Council had not paid the Hollybank Trust the correct funding to meet Y’s full care needs since his placement started.
11. In November 2017, Mrs X also complained to the CCG about the level of care provided to Y. It responded in December 2017 and said that the responsibility for Y’s care had been with the Council. It said if she was unhappy with its response, she could escalate her complaint to the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman.
12. In December 2017, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X said it had failed to address the concerns she raised. During this period, the Hollybank Trust gave Mrs X 28 days-notice and ended Y’s placement 25 December 2017.
13. Mrs X escalated the complaint with the Council through stage two and stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Alongside her complaints about the quality of care and the safeguarding of Y, she also complained about the Hollybank Trust’s decision to evict Y.
14. The stage three panel took place in February 2019. Of the eleven separate complaints made by Mrs X it: upheld six complaints; partially upheld one complaint; found no finding on two complaints and did not uphold two complaints. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome and complained to the Ombudsman.
15. Initially, the Ombudsman decided to exercise its discretion and investigate Mrs X’s complaint. However, since complaining to the Ombudsman, Mrs X has made additional complaints to the CCG including the eviction of Y. The Hollybank Trust has also commissioned an independent investigator to investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Trust. The Ombudsmen consider it reasonable to give the CCG and the Hollybank Trust the opportunity to resolve the complaints locally. Therefore, the Ombudsmen have discontinued their investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. Mrs X complained the Council and Clinical Commissioning Group failed to ensure her son’s care provider gave him the level of care needed. I have discontinued my investigation because the complaint is premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman