Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care his late father Mr Y received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding and complaint investigations, lead to a different outcome, nor achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X is the son of the late Mr Y. Mr Y was in a care home in the Council’s area when he died in 2021, a Council-commissioned placement. Mr X complains the home provided inadequate care to Mr Y up to the date of his death.
2. Mr X says unanswered questions about Mr Y’s care have profoundly affected him. He says the lack of closure on Mr Y’s care and passing has led to severe psychological trauma and PTSD and his detention under the Mental Health Act, in turn resulting in substantial loss of earnings and disruption to his personal and professional life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• 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

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We recognise the great upset and distress Mr X has been caused and that he continues to feel as a result of the death of Mr Y and its circumstances. The issue at the core of Mr X’s complaint, and the question to which he considers he has not received satisfactory answers, is whether the actions of the commissioned care provider caused or contributed to Mr Y’s death. Ombudsman investigations cannot make such a finding. Only the coroner can make a finding on someone’s cause of death. An investigation by us now could not find the outcome for Mr Y would have been different but for any different actions by the care home. We cannot remedy any injustice caused to Mr Y while he was in the care home because we cannot do this for someone once they have died.
6. The care home’s complaint response shows it investigated to determine the events before Mr Ys’ death and his wider care provision. The complaint response shows Mr Y’s care was the subject of a safeguarding investigation due to the circumstances surrounding his death. That safeguarding process considered the available evidence but could not fully explain the cause of a head injury Mr Y had received before he died. But there would be no new or different information available to an investigation by us now which staff and officers have not already considered when responding to Mr X and following the safeguarding process. An investigation by us cannot alter or add to those investigations to provide more or different answers for Mr X. Concerns about the circumstances of Mr Y’s death held by anyone would have been matters to raise with the coroner at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would not add to the previous safeguarding and complaint investigations, lead to a different outcome or achieve a worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman