Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the care the late Mr B received from his Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s responses or provide Mrs C with a different outcome. We could not now provide a remedy for any injustice caused to Mr B because he is deceased.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complained about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns raised about the care and support her late partner Mr B received from his Care Provider between July and September 2021. Mrs C is concerned Mr B was neglected by his Care Provider, was not treated with dignity or respect, was severely dehydrated when admitted to hospital, had lost weight, had an eye infection and swelling of the elbow which were not picked up by care staff and his feet were covered in faeces. Mrs C complained about poor communication with the Care Provider and the Council. Mrs C says Mr B’s daughter was given another residents clothing and teeth when she collected his belongings from the home and these items were not picked up for two years. Mrs C says the Council’s safeguarding investigation and review found the matters to be inconclusive and wants a full investigation into what happened.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council apologised to Mrs C for the delay and poor communication in considering her complaints and explained why this was the case. It acknowledged Mrs C’s view that Mr B had been neglected and not properly cared for by his Care Provider. It said the safeguarding investigation found Mr B could have been better cared for and confirmed it has had follow up meetings with the Care Provider regarding the findings of the investigation and found evidence that learning had been put into practice. It explained this will form part of the focus on Quality Assurance meetings to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence happening again in the future. The Council confirmed shared learning has been set as an Action for Managers and cascaded as part of reflection in preventing such issues arising again. The Council acknowledged Mrs C felt aggrieved by the personal experience she had with Mr B’s Care Provider and asked it to contact Mrs C to apologise.
6. The Council acknowledged Mrs C had not been reassured but the safeguarding investigation responded to her points and the outcome was inconclusive.
7. We could not add any more to the Council’s investigation and findings even if we investigated. We recognise the circumstances leading to the safeguarding investigation has caused upset to Mrs C and Mr B’s family but this in itself is not a sufficient to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We would not investigate the findings and outcome of the safeguarding investigation when we could not achieve a remedy for the person at the core of the safeguarding, Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because we could not achieve a different outcome to that provided by the Council. We could not provide Mr B with a remedy for any injustice caused by fault uncovered during an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman