The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s record keeping, failing to notify her of safeguarding issues and spending funds without her consent. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s investigation, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and because there is a more appropriate forum to consider disputes about information.
The complaint
Mrs X complains on behalf of herself and her son, Mr Y, that the Council: Holds incorrect information about her in its care records for Mr Y; Failed to inform her of safeguarding issues regarding Mr Y; Failed to provide adequate care to Mr Y; Spent Mr Y’s money without her consent and has not refunded this as agreed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X and I reviewed documents provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Mrs X is appointed as deputy to make decisions on behalf of Mr Y concerning his health and welfare. She says she holds deputyship in relation to finances too.
In 2021 Mrs X made a Subject Access Request and received Mr Y’s care records. She had concerns upon her review.
In November 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council: It did not inform her of two safeguarding matters; There were instances of poor care referenced in Mr Y’s records; He was found in bed at 10am one day having not been fed or changed; The care home did not book a nurse to give Mr Y medication; The care home fed Mr Y a children’s happy meal; Staff put Mr Y’s shoes on incorrectly; The care home did not tell her of Mr Y’s weight loss.
The care home spent Mr Y’s money without her permission; The care records contained incorrect information about her and Mr Y.
The Council responded in February 2022. In summary: Mrs X could not provide dates for the following and it could not identify when these may have occurred or find any other information: Mr Y found in bed at 10am one day having not been fed or changed; The care home did not book a nurse to give Mr Y medication.
It took the view Mr Y could eat food that may be considered unhealthy on occasion.
Once it identified shoes were fitted incorrectly it marked these to prevent recurrence.
The files reference concerns about Mr Y’s weight but the service had no concerns.
Mr Y had an allowance of spending money (£2.00 to £3.00) and could use this to take part in games. Once Mrs X raised concerns this stopped. It would arrange a refund if she confirmed how she wanted this.
It noted Mrs X disagreed with observations recorded by staff. It could not alter this information however it would keep a record of her disagreement on file.
There was no evidence of neglect or abuse. Mrs X or agencies supporting Mr Y raised concerns at times. Where there were formal meetings with professionals it invited Mrs X.
Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
When I spoke to Mrs X she said she was not told of incidents where Mr Y: was manhandled and bumped his head; was without medication; was not fed or changed before a visit at 10am.
Mrs X added that she had since made enquiries of the Council that it had refused to answer.
Mrs X said Mr Y had been in his current setting for three years and she was happy with its service.
In comments on a draft decision Mrs X said: She enclosed documents referencing the date and time of a safeguarding matter on page 21.
Mr Y did not have the capacity to understand or take part in games.
An adult should be fed adult meals.
It was degrading to mark Mr Y’s shoes as left and right simply because staff could not put them on correctly.
She highlighted a further safeguarding concern on page 16.
On review of the documents provided I note: Page 21 refers to a concern that a nurse had not visited Mr Y to administer suppositories on two occasions in September 2018 as expected. Mr Y was in good health despite this. And the Council confirmed a process was in place to ensure Mr Y received the care required in future. The records say his family were not notified because they had relinquished responsibility for his care.
Page 16 refers to a concern of manhandling raised in July 2018. The records are incomplete so it is not clear who was notified or why Mrs X may not have been notified.
Findings
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s records are inaccurate. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the more appropriate forum.
I cannot consider Mrs X’s related complaints that the Council’s records contain false information that amount to libel or slander. This is because the civil courts are the more appropriate forum.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council did not inform her of two safeguarding issues. The Council told Mrs X it was unable to find any records of the safeguarding matters referred and so did not address these. In such circumstances it is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman will add anything. Mrs X has provided further information related to the medication, however this shows the Council had reasons for not notifying her. It is unlikely we would find fault given this. Further, there is nothing to suggest any fault caused significant injustice and, there is no ongoing injustice to Mr Y or Mrs X.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council did not provide adequate care to Mr Y. This is because the Council addressed the incidents raised and appears to have acted properly. It is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman will add anything. And because any fault did not cause significant injustice and there is no ongoing injustice to Mr Y or Mrs X.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council spent Mr Y’s money without her consent. This is because the Council agreed a refund and only a few pounds are due. It is not a proportionate use of public resources to investigate where the alleged injustice is so limited.
Any matters Mrs X raised with the Council after contacting the Ombudsman are premature. This includes the additional concern raised in her comments on a draft decision. Where Mrs X is unhappy the Council has not provided information requested, she may wish to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s investigation, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or because there is a more appropriate forum to consider the dispute.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman