Summary: Mrs D complains about the way the Council and the Health Collaboration dealt with her when she complained about care provided to her late mother. We will not investigate this complaint because both organisations have already admitted fault in how they dealt with Mrs D and apologised. The Health Collaboration has also made changes to ensure these faults do not happen again. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complains about South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) and South Tyneside Health Collaboration (the Health Collaboration). She has been involved with both organisations because they were involved in her late mother’s care.
2. Specifically, Mrs D complains;
• The Council did not respond to her complaint in a timely manner, and it has covered up its own actions to protect its staff.
• The Council are deliberately withholding information from her. She wants to know who knew what, when, and what happened to this information, but the Council will not answer her.
• The Health Collaboration has defended a member of its staff, who has denied disclosing information to Mrs D.
3. Mrs D explains she was very distressed when her mother was in a care home which needed intervention from the Care Quality Commission. During the complaints process, she was caused further distress as she feels the organisations have covered up the actions of staff.
4. Mrs D wants honest answers from the organisations. She wants an independent investigation which will force the organisations to give her the answers they are denying her.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigates complaints about adult social care providers. (Local Government Act, sections 34B, and 34C, as amended). The Health Service Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ in the delivery of health services (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1)).
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3 (1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
7. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.

8. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered written information from Mrs D, including her complaints to the Council and the Health Collaboration.
10. I considered the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
11. Mrs D commented on my draft decision, and I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. Both the Council and the Health Collaboration have provided several responses to Mrs D’s complaints.
13. In its complaint response of 13 March 2023, the Council did not find fault with the issues Mrs D had raised about her mothers care, but it did apologise for the distress Mrs D had experienced. Mrs D brought her complaint to the Ombudsmen, and in October 2023 we asked the Council to provide a further response to Mrs D.
14. In its further complaint response of 12 March 2024, the Council explained it could not find evidence to support several of Mrs D’s complaints. However, it also admitted it had overlooked some evidence which Mrs D had sent to it and apologised for the oversight and the distress this caused. The Council also apologised for the delay in it responding to Mrs D’s complaint and said it had put extra resources into its complaint team to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
15. In its first complaint response of 22 December 2023, the Health Collaboration apologised for the distressing experience Mrs D had with one of its staff members. It provided Mrs D with copies of the staff member’s notes and explained from this evidence, it could not uphold Mrs D’s complaint. However, it accepted communication could have been better and said it had “since implemented multidisciplinary team meetings within the care home where both health care professionals and family members are able to meet to discuss patients individual care and support planning. These meetings are documented and attended by multiple professionals.”
16. In its second complaint response of 22 February 2024, the Health Collaboration explained because the conversation between Mrs D and its staff member was not recorded or witnessed by a third party, it did not know what was said. The Health Collaboration apologised again on behalf of itself, and on behalf of the staff member. It reiterated the training and changes in practice it had put in place and asked Mrs D what else she would like to happen to resolve her complaint.
17. In its further complaint response of 12 March 2024, the Health Collaboration again explained the staff member had received training, it had made changes to its organisational practises, and it was also working with Health Education England to get peer-to-peer coaching for its staff. It also apologised again to Mrs D for the distress the experience had caused her.
18. In summary, both organisations have admitted they got things wrong and apologised to Mrs D. The Health Collaboration has improved its processes and trained the staff member. Both organisations have said they cannot consider some parts of Mrs D’s complaints because there is no evidence.
19. The action taken by both organisations is in line with the Ombudsmen’s guidance on remedies and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.
20. Mrs D can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office if she feels the organisations are withholding information she is entitled to.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate this complaint as an Ombudsmen investigation is unlikely to achieve more for Mrs D.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman