Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to his grandmother, Mrs Y, by Company Z, a Council commissioned care provider. The Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns, upheld part of his complaint, apologised and taken action to improve practice in-house and with the care provider. We could not add to the Council’s response or provide the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X has made this complaint on Mrs Y’s behalf to us and to the Council. Mr X complains about:

• Company Z not properly managing Mrs Y’s nighttime wandering due to dementia;
• Company Z failing to properly care for Mrs Y, resulting in an unwitnessed fall and hip fracture. This injury has left Mrs Y unable to walk;
• Company Z and the Council failing to properly investigate Mrs Y’s fall and failing to appropriately discipline the staff member involved;
• Company Z has failed to respond to Mr X’s requests for data about the incident;
• The Council’s lack of proper action to address the upheld elements of Mr X’s complaint.

2. Mr X says the injury has impacted on Mrs Y’s mobility and caused distress to her family. He wants a further review, staff training by the care provider and compensation for his grandmother.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council responded to the elements of Mr X’s complaint listed above after it had conducted safeguarding enquiries into the fall which led to Mrs Y sustaining a hip fracture and hospitalisation. It concluded elements of the Company Z’s record keeping and reporting procedures had not been followed, which meant it could not determine exactly what had happened when Mrs Y fell. The Council informed Mr X that Company Z had issued a final written warning to the staff member involved, who would also be undertaking further training and supervision. The Council also explained the action it would be undertaking to monitor Company Z’s performance going forward and how it intended to improve communication links between its safeguarding and commissioning teams to ensure relevant safeguarding information is properly shared. The Council apologised for the distress caused to Mrs Y and her family for the faults it had identified.
7. The Council has already completed what appears to be a thorough and detailed investigation and response to Mr X’s complaints. In the absence of further independent and tangible evidence, we could not add to the Council’s investigation or conclusions. We also cannot award punitive compensation or ‘damages’ as those Mr X has requested as such matters are for the courts. We have no role in determining whether an organisation has been negligent as only the courts can make such findings.
8. Mr X has said he disagrees with the disciplinary action taken against the staff member involved. It is up to Company Z to decide how it dealt with internal disciplinary issues and not something we would interfere with as we cannot investigate personnel issues.
9. Mr X is unhappy the Council has declined to support any legal claim he intends to pursue against Company Z. The Council is entitled to take such a stance and this is not evidence of fault that would justify us investigating.
10. Mr X has also complained about Company Z’s failure to respond to his requests for data under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). We cannot investigate such matters as there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. The Information Commissioner considers complaints about data handling. Mr X may wish to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office if he still has concerns about this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation could not provide a different outcome to those already achieved. We cannot recommend Company Z takes specific disciplinary action, nor can we investigate how it has dealt with Mr X’s requests for personal data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman