Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided on behalf of the Council. It is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s investigation or reach a different or worthwhile outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants as we cannot make findings of neglect or hold an organisation responsible for a death.

The complaint

1. Ms C says a care provider acting on behalf of the Council neglected her relative, Mr D. Ms C believes the care provider contributed to Mr D’s death and wants the organisation held accountable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant enough injustice to the person who complained 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the care provider acting for the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged a short stay for Mr D at a residential care home (the care provider). The Council remains responsible for meeting Mr D’s adult social care needs, even though it has contracted it to a third party. So, this complaint is against the Council.
6. The Council is also the local safeguarding authority. This means it has a duty to protect an adult’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. Ms C’s complaint that Mr D was neglected would be more suitably considered under the Council’s safeguarding powers. Or Ms C could seek legal advice as neglect is a criminal matter. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of neglect, nor say the care provider’s actions caused or contributed to Mr D’s death. Only a coroner could make such a finding.
7. Mr D has died and so the Ombudsman can provide him with no remedy for any impact of poor care he may have received. Ms C is understandably distressed by Mr D’s sudden decline in health and his death, but we cannot say that was caused by fault of the Council.
8. The care provider has fully investigated Ms C’s complaint, by considering available evidence and speaking with relevant staff. It found no evidence of fault. Ms C says the care provider made up the evidence, though it seems unlikely the Ombudsman could prove that. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to this investigation or reach a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would achieve a different or worthwhile outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms C wants as we cannot say the care provider acting on behalf of the Council is responsible for Mr D’s death.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman