Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events in a care home.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about problems when she was temporarily in a care home arranged by the Council. She said in particular a carer’s comments distressed her.

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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X states when she was about to leave the care home a carer spoke to her when nobody else was present. Mrs X says the carer accused Mrs X of being untruthful about why a relative could not collect her and said the care home and other care homes would not let Mrs X stay in future because she complained so much. Mrs X states the latter comment suggests the carer might have confused her with another resident, who had reportedly made complaints. Mrs X states the comments distressed her. The care home says it cannot establish what was said.
7. As nobody else witnessed the comments, I do not consider there is a realistic chance of the Ombudsman reaching a clear enough view about what was said. Also, while I note Mrs X’s distress, I do not consider the distress from this incident amounts to a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation.
8. Mrs X also suggests the carer’s comments amounted to defamation. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. Defamation is not necessarily a straightforward matter legally, especially when nobody else was present. So it is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider whether defamation happened. I note Mrs X states she cannot afford court action but that does not make the question of defamation something the Ombudsman can reasonably decide. If Mrs X wants a ruling on this legal point, it is reasonable for her to seek that in court.
9. Mrs X also described problems with some clothing going missing during her stay in the care home. The care home apologised and repaid Mrs X the cost of replacement clothes she asked someone to buy her. It also returned some clothing it said it had found, although Mrs X says that was not hers. The care home described changes it has made to reduce the chance of losing residents’ clothing in future. I do not believe we could achieve more than that.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would be able to reach a clear enough view about the carers’ comments, we could not achieve anything more about the missing clothing and because there is not enough continuing significant injustice to Mrs X to warrant investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman