The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. The complainant alleges neglect, which would be more appropriately investigated by the relevant safeguarding authority or by a court. The person using the service has died so we can achieve no personal remedy for any fault. The Care Quality Commission has inspected and made service improvements. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
The complaint
Ms B says the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council neglected her father, Mr D, when he was living in its care. Ms B says Mr D suffered before he died. Ms B says the Care Provider has falsified records and lied. Ms B is distressed. Ms B wants the Care Provider held accountable and to tell the truth. Ms B wants relevant care workers dismissed, for staff to receive training, and tighter surveillance conducted on the care home.
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: further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 D lived at Asprey Court Care Home (the Care Provider). The Council arranged Mr D’s care so remained responsible for it; the Care Provider acts on behalf of the Council to meet Mr D’s adult social care needs.
The allegations of neglect would be more appropriately investigated by the relevant safeguarding authority. In this case it would be Birmingham City Council, as the care home is based in its area. If the professional bodies, such as the paramedics or hospital had concerns, they would have raised a safeguarding concern. If Ms B has not done so, she should contact Birmingham City Council to raise her concerns of neglect. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of neglect, that is for the courts, so Ms B could also seek legal advice on the matter.
The Care Provider has provided a thorough response to Ms B’s concerns. But Ms B believes the Care Provider is lying. I understand Ms B wants an independent investigation, but it would not be a good use of the Ombudsman resource if there is little we can achieve. Mr D has since died, so the Ombudsman can provide no remedy to Mr D for any impact he suffered. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants to dismiss staff, as we have no powers to get involved in personnel matters between the Care Provider and its staff. Regular oversight of the Care Provider is achieved by quality monitoring by the local council, and inspections by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The CQC has inspected the Care Provider since Mr D’s stay and found it requires improvement around being safe. The CQC has therefore already made service improvements with the care home.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms B wants, and there are other bodies better placed to consider these complaints. It is unlikely we can add to investigations already undertaken, or that an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman