Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider, on behalf of the Council, failed to respond to her concerns about safeguarding her relative, Mrs Y, did not report safeguarding incidents, and did not keep adequate records. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there are not enough indications of fault for us to investigate, and we are unlikely to add to the response she has already received from the care provider.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the care home where her relative, Mrs Y, was resident. She complained the care provider, on behalf of Wakefield City Council (the Council) failed to respond properly to her concerns about a visitor to the home. Mrs X also said the care provider did not report safeguarding incidents to the Council or CQC, and said its record keeping was poor.
2. Mrs X said this meant the care provider did not safeguard residents. Mrs X also said the care provider served notice to Mrs Y because it had failed to address the concerns Mrs X had raised.
3. As an outcome of her complaint, Mrs X wants the care provider to improve its services by providing staff training in safeguarding, record-keeping and pre-admission assessments. She also wants the provider to improve its complaint handling.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mrs X and the care provider on behalf of the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X said that in failing to respond to her concerns about a visitor to the care home, the care provider failed to safeguard residents and served notice to Mrs Y. Mrs X also said the provider did not report safeguarding incidents to the Council or CQC and that its records were poor.
9. In responding to Mrs X’s complaint, the care provider said it had referred incidents of inappropriate behaviour or comments to the Council’s safeguarding team. The provider clarified it had made two safeguarding referrals. It also said it had put enhanced supervision in place during visits as a result. The provider said the Council was satisfied with the measures the provider had put in place and had closed the safeguarding referrals.
10. The care provider said it had not been given evidence of any issues relating to the visitor during its pre-admission assessment of Mrs Y’s needs. Mrs X said the provider had been given information regarding the level of support Mrs Y needed during the pre-admission assessment. The provider said that in view of Mrs X’s complaint, it had amended its pre-admission assessment tool to prompt additional questions about issues which may impact prospective residents. It is unlikely we would add to this response from the provider by investigating this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
11. Mrs X said the provider did not properly respond to her concerns. In responding to Mrs X’s complaint, the provider reviewed the records, interviewed staff and provided details of this in its response. The provider acknowledged its response time fell outside the 28 days set out by its complaints policy. However, it said this was because it had been trying to accommodate a meeting about the issues of the complaint, between Mrs Y’s family, the Council and the care home. The care provider explained this meeting was rearranged several times by the other parties involved. The provider also said it had then received a further complaint from Mrs X which it also needed to respond to. Therefore, while acknowledging the response took longer than it should have done, the provider clearly explained the reasons for this, and it is unlikely we could add anything further for Mrs X on this point by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, as we would be unlikely to find sufficient fault or add to the response Mrs X has already received from the care provider on behalf of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman