The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a missed care visit to Mr C, and the delay in the Council holding a safeguarding review meeting and providing the minutes of the meeting to him. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr B complains Mr C’s carers didn’t visit him over a 24 hour period. He says this was detrimental to Mr C and he would like compensation.
Mr B also complains the Council did not hold the safeguarding review meeting in a timely manner, and it failed to provide him with the minutes from the meeting. He says he would like an explanation and apology for the delay, and a copy of the meeting minutes.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B’s complaint has been addressed through the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council has recognised there is fault and that Mr C should not have missed a care visit. This led to Mr C not having food, water or medication for 24 hours. The Council has apologised for that and provided Mr C with a payment to recognise his injustice. This is sufficient to acknowledge the impact and short-term nature of the fault.
The Council has apologised for the delay in holding the safeguarding review meeting, and the delay in providing the meeting minutes to Mr B. The Council explained to Mr B the delay in providing the meeting minutes was caused by a lack of record-keeping and communication. It has apologised and acknowledged that additional training in the safeguarding process is needed, and it has taken learning from the complaint, which it has shared with staff members. It has also provided Mr B with a payment to recognise the time and trouble taken chasing and reporting concerns to the Council. And a second payment for injustice from the lack of records and communication issues. It has also given Mr B a copy of the meeting minutes.
This is sufficient to acknowledge the complaint and it is not likely we could achieve anything more. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award compensation. If Mr B thinks he or Mr C is entitled to compensation, he may wish to make a claim against the Council in court.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B and Mr C’s complaint. This is because I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken in response to the complaint and I do not consider we would achieve anything further by investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman