Summary: North Somerset Council and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board’s complaint investigations were not robust or in line with the relevant legislation, respectively. That caused Mr X time and trouble. The organisations have agreed to reinvestigate Mr X’s concerns about his mother.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that North Somerset Council’s (the Council) complaint handling was poor. He says it has not:
• Explained why it decided to move his mother, Mrs C, to a Nursing Home specialising in dementia, despite her not having a formal diagnosis.
• Explained why staff focussed more on Mrs C’s mental capacity, and depriving her liberty, rather than supporting her care needs.
• Provided a robust response to the family’s concerns about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about Mrs C.
2. Mr X complains that NHS Bristol, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire’s Integrated Care Board (the ICB) failed to investigate (or refer) his complaint about the poor care and treatment for Mrs C’s leg ulcers. That complaint involved the actions of the local tissue viability nurses, two Nursing Homes, and three GP Practices.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, the Council and ICB. I contacted the Council and ICB and invited them to remedy the injustice I had identified. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council in late March 2022, and to the ICB in early April. His complaint contained a robust chronology of events and many questions.
6. During April, the ICB told Mr X a local NHS Trust was better placed to investigate his concerns, as the ICB did not provide any support to Mrs C. The Trust responded to Mr X in late August 2022.
7. The Council provided a Stage 1 response in early August 2022. Mr X requested to escalate his complaint. A month later, the Council apologised for its delays but considered it had thoroughly investigated his concerns. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not answered his specific questions.
8. In mid-September, Mr X asked the ICB to reconsider if any of the issues he complained about fell under their remit. The ICB told Mr X the Council and Trust were best placed to consider his complaint. But the ICB would keep a review of his complaint.
9. In late-September, Mr X complained to the Ombudsmen.
10. I consider the Council and ICB’s complaint handling was fault. I will explain why.
11. Mr X’s complaint document was long, but I understand he wanted to provide a comprehensive history to help the Council address his questions. The Council did not have to address every question, as some were not relevant. I do not consider the Council has provided a robust response to his complaint. That was fault.
12. In March and September 2022, as per Regulation 7 of The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complains (England) Regulations 2009, the ICB should have either agreed to manage the wound care complaint, or (subject to Mr X’s consent) refer his complaint to each organisation responsible. The ICB did not do this, which was fault.
13. I consider Mr X has suffered time and trouble from the Council and ICB’s poor complaint handling.

Back to top

Agreed actions

14. Within twelve weeks of this decision, the Council and ICB have agreed to complete its investigations into Mr X’s complaint in paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively. It will inform Mr X of the outcome, ensuring it provides appropriate information about their rights under the process. The ICB should ensure it obtains Mr X’s consent if it decides to refer his complaint to other organisations to consider.
15. The Council has also offered to reduce the debt owed to it by £500 to recognise the inconvenience caused to Mr X from its delay handling his complaint. This payment is independent of the Ombudsmen’s recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I consider the Council and ICB poorly handled Mr X’s complaints. That caused him time and trouble, which the organisations have agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman