The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care received by the complainant’s mother.
This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complained about her mother’s residential care. Miss X said her mother (Mrs Y) suffered a cut leg and various falls. Miss X said a pressure sensor mat was not plugged in and staff shouted at Mrs Y. Miss X said the Care Provider did not return all of Mrs Y’s possessions when she moved to a different care home. Miss X complained the Care Provider had overcharged her. She also raised concerns about a broken lift and how residents would be evacuated if there was a fire.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mrs Y was a resident of a care provider commissioned by the Council. Miss X complained to the Care Provider about the quality of Mrs Y’s care. In its response to Miss X’s complaints it said: Mrs Y dropped a bottle of water bought by Miss X onto her leg causing a skin tear. It called the District Nurse who dressed the wound.
Mrs Y fell twice while a resident. The floor sensor mat could not stop falls – it would just alert staff. Mrs Y would often unplug the mat or walk around it to avoid setting it off.
A member of staff had shouted over the intercom, but this was only so she could be heard over Mrs Y – who was also shouting.
It had returned all of Mrs Y’s possessions.
The Council gave the Care Provider’s accountant the wrong date to charge from. As soon as the Care Provider realised this it refunded the overpayment.
The lift could not be used in the event of a fire, and it would evacuate residents using an appropriate method.
Assessment I recognise Miss X is concerned about the care Mrs Y received. But we will not start an investigation into her complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Miss X has received.
We could never say what led to Mrs Y’s falls or why the pressure sensor mat was unplugged. We were not there to witness staff raising their voices so could not say what happened. The Care Provider says it has returned Mrs Y’s possessions and refunded the overpayment. We could not achieve anything more.
Mrs Y is no longer a resident of the Care Provider. There is no ongoing injustice from the service failures Miss X complains about. We will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response she has already received.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman