Summary: The Ombudsmen should not investigate this complaint because it is late. I have not seen sufficient reasons to accept it now.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the failure of health and social care providers and lack of duty of care to him. In particular he complains about the following organisations: Hampshire County Council (the Council), West Hampshire CCG, Solent NHS Trust, North Baddesley Surgery and Southampton City CCG. Mr D is represented by his brother, Mr F and his mother, Mrs K.
2. Mr D’s complaints are summarised as:
1. Delay in rehabilitation being granted
2. Concerns over failure of health and social care providers to show duty of care and treat effectively
3. Safeguarding concerns
3. Mr F says the family want compensation to reflect the failings in Mr D’s care and help towards neurorehabilitation.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. 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, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
5. The Ombudsmen cannot investigate late complaints unless they decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. During my consideration of this complaint, I spoke to Mr F and read the information he sent me. I also looked at the complaint responses and correspondence with the organisations complained about. Mr F also provided comments on a draft of this decision and I considered these before reaching a final view.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. In November 2017 Mr D’s previous GP surgery made an individual funding request (IFR) to West Hampshire CCG for rehabilitation. Mr D was resident in a care home at the time. This placement broke down in December 2017 and Mr D moved to a different care home that provided care and support for people with a wide range of complex healthcare needs.
8. West Hampshire CCG arranged for Mr D to be assessed and made enquiries with other organisations in its consideration of Mr D’s IFR.
9. In January 2018 Mrs K raised safeguarding concerns about the care home and its staff.
10. By March 2018 West Hampshire CCG had received all the information it had needed to make its decision. It said ‘the expert view of the consultant was that [Mr D] would not benefit from inpatient rehabilitation.’ It said the IFR panel ‘agreed with the view of the expert clinician and the application was withdrawn.’
11. Mr D’s family raised concerns with Southampton City CCG in April 2018 about various aspects of his health and social care and the lack of funding for rehabilitation. Southampton City CCG identified the relevant different organisations and coordinated a complaint investigation and response. Southampton City CCG sent the final complaint response letter incorporating all the complaints to Mr D on 11 January 2019.
12. Mr D brought his complaint to the Ombudsmen on 30 January 2020.

My analysis

13. We usually expect complaints to be made to us within 12 months of a person becoming aware of the issues they wish to complain about.
14. In some circumstances we may still be able to investigate even if a complaint is made to us ‘late’. However, in Mr D’s case, my view is there are insufficient reasons to consider his complaint about events of 2018 now. In reaching this view, I have considered the reasons Mr F has given for not complaining to us sooner and whether it would still be possible to obtain the evidence needed to investigate the complaint fairly.
15. Mr F said he was not aware of how to complaint to an Ombudsman and needed to research this before bringing the complaint. He also said there had been further issues the family had been dealing with since the complaint. Additionally, the family approached a disability law service for advice on their case.
16. I note the final complaint response letter sent to Mr D signposted him to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome. It also explained this should be done as soon as practicable and provided contact details. Responses from other organisations also included the next steps to bring the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman should they remain dissatisfied. Therefore Mr D and his family had details of how to complain to the Ombudsmen in January 2019. I also note the family sought legal advice rather than approaching the Ombudsmen. This is their right, but there was no reason they could not have contacted the Ombudsmen before they did, over a year after local resolution of the complaint ended.

Back to top

Summary

17. Mr D’s complaints about the organisations complained about are late. Although I recognise the family’s strength of feeling, I have not seen sufficient reason for us to investigate this complaint now.

Back to top

Decision

18. The Ombudsmen should not investigate this complaint because it is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman