Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council and the Care Provider it commissioned when Mr Y returned home from hospital with a package of care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, who has now died. Mr X’s complaints included the Council:
• discharged Mr Y from hospital without care in place until two days later;
• did not provide proper introductions on an assessment visit; and
• wrongly recorded Mr Y’s niece as his next of kin.
2. Mr X’s complaints also included carers from the Care Provider:
• did not sign in and out, wear identification or properly complete handovers;
• spoke to each other in a different language rather than talking to Mr Y;
• gave Mr Y medication meant for his wife; and
• left bags full of soiled pads in Mr Y’s bedroom.
3. Mr X said the matter has caused him to lose trust in the Council, and the death of his father. He wanted the Council to make service improvements relating to its IT systems, communication and consistency of workers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. If we investigated this complaint, it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council already completed or provide a different or meaningful outcome. This is because:
• The Council could not come to a sound conclusion in relation to several areas of the complaint, and we would not be able to come to a different finding in these areas. There is insufficient evidence of fault, for example, in terms of carers speaking to each other in their native tongue and not speaking to Mr Y, and a social worker not providing proper introductions.
• In the areas where the Council accepted there was fault, actions have been taken to address the matters. The Council made appropriate referrals to the Care Quality Commission and undertook its own safeguarding enquiries. The Care Provider took action to address the matter with the carers involved. There is insufficient evidence of any wider systemic issue that would warrant our involvement or further service improvement recommendations to be made.
• There is insufficient evidence any fault caused a significant injustice. There is insufficient evidence the issues Mr X complains about were related to Mr Y’s death, nor could we come to such a conclusion in any event. There is insufficient evidence Mr Y suffered a significant injustice due to any of the matters Mr X complains about, and we could not make recommendations for remedying any injustice to Mr Y because he has since died.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman