The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about security measures in a care home. This is because the Care Provider’s actions do not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
The complaint
Ms D says the security at the care home is poor because residents have got out when they should not have. Ms D has seen doors left open, and staff members have given out the key code when they are not supposed to. The Care Provider expects staff to let visitors out of the locked doors, but Ms D finds it frustrating when she cannot find a staff member to let her out. Ms D says the Care Provider has not responded to her concerns in accordance with its complaint procedure. Ms D feels the Care Provider has not taken her concerns seriously, and this upsets her and worsens her anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: the action has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms D’s relative, Ms E, lives at Lucerne House care home, run by Barchester Healthcare (the Care Provider).
The Care Provider must ensure the safety of its residents. The Ombudsman would not therefore criticise the Care Provider’s process of having a locked door and not giving out the code to visitors. Ms E was not one of the residents who got out, so there is no injustice to Ms E or Ms D by any failure to follow the security policy.
While it might be frustrating for Ms D and other visitors to have to wait to be let out or find a member of staff to let them out, this is not a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
Ms D is also unhappy with the way the Care Provider dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Care Provider’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because the Care Provider’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. It is also unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to any different outcome, as it is up to the Care Provider to decide its security measures.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman