The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care received by the complainant’s now deceased mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complained about the residential care received by his now deceased mother (Mrs Y). Mr X’s complaint included: Poor communication by the Care Provider. This included not responding to a complaint and a complaint response Mr X described as a “four-page rant”. Mr X also said the Care Provider failed to report accidents involving Mrs Y.
The Care Provider not meeting Mrs Y’s dietary needs.
Issues with invoices.
A landing door being propped open causing a fire hazard.
No radio or TV in Mrs Y’s toom.
Issues with medical records / medication and a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) Funding application not being completed.
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) Where someone has died, we will not normally seek a remedy for injustice caused to that person in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of, for example, the impact of poor care that person might have received while they were alive. This is because the person who received the poor care cannot benefit from such a payment.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I recognise how important the issues at the heart of this complaint are to Mr X. But we will not start an investigation into his complaint. The reasons for this are below.
The Care Provider has responded to Mr X’s complaints about communication. While it is clear Mr X remains unhappy, Mrs Y has now sadly passed away. It is therefore unlikely we could add anything meaningful to the Care Provider’s response. I understand Mr X is unhappy with one of the responses he described as a “four-page rant”. But it is not for us to say how Care Providers should word their complaint responses. The Care Provider says it sent this response following receipt of the complaint Mr X says was not responded to. The Care Provider has explained how it notified the family of the accident involving Mrs Y.
The Care Provider has accepted that it twice gave Mrs Y cheese and eggs by mistake – foods she could not eat. It has apologised, interviewed staff, and it talked to Mrs Y’s GP at the time. An investigation could not achieve anything more. Any injustice to Mrs Y can no longer be remedied. The injustice to Mr X is not enough to warrant an investigation.
The Care Provider has said it produces its own invoices. Its hairdresser and chiropodist produce paper lists of clients and the services provided. It sent these to Mr X in support of an invoice. An investigation would not add anything more and there is no evidence of significant personal injustice from this point.
The Care Provider says it has not received a complaint about a door being propped open. But this point would not warrant investigation because it did not cause any significant personal injustice – either to Mr X or Mrs Y.
The Care Provider says it has not received a complaint about a lack of TV or radio in Mrs Y’s room. But it is not something we would investigate because we could not now achieve anything. Any injustice was to Mrs Y, which we could not now remedy.
The Care Provider says it followed the GP’s instructions regarding Mrs Y’s medication. It has provided the information needed for a retrospective CHC application, but says this now needs to be driven by the family. We do not have the power to award NHS CHC funding. But Mr X can ask the NHS directly to complete a retrospective CHC funding assessment. We could not therefore achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating this point.
Given the above an investigation into Mr X’s complaint would not be appropriate. We will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman