Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of care her mother received when she was a resident of Bradbury Court. That is because we could not add anything to Friends of the Elderly’s previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the quality of care her mother, Mrs Y received when she was a resident at Bradbury Court (the Home). She said Mrs Y had paid for substandard care.
2. Mrs X wants Friends of the Elderly to address issues with the Home’s management and address what she feels is a negative, unhealthy environment for residents and visitors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to Friends of the Elderly about how the Home had managed Mrs Y’s personal care, such as frequently having dirty nails or hearing aids not being put in. She said the Home had frequently damaged or lost her mother’s clothes when laundering them. She also made more generalised complaints about the Home.
8. Friends of the Elderly discussed and responded to Mrs X’s complaints the following month. Its complaint response indicated that there had been some failings in the care provided to Mrs Y. It said:
• It had identified and found Mrs Y’s missing clothing. It had told staff to ensure clothing was retuned to the correct residents and to ensure any unmarked clothes were labelled.
• It had replaced Mrs Y’s lost money and reminded staff of the importance of recording valuables on a resident’s admission to the Home.
• It was wrong of the Home not to allow Mrs X to borrow a wheelchair when she needed to take Mrs Y to hospital. It also said it was the Home’s responsibility to act as escorts for hospital appointments.
• It had spoken to care staff about how they responded to call bells at night.
• That Mrs Y had been referred for a continence assessment, and in the meantime, the Home were providing pads.
• It had spoken to the Home manager about the Home’s communication.
9. Friends of the Elderly apologised for the issues Mrs X and Mrs Y experienced, and for any upset and distress caused.
10. We will not investigate this complaint further. Friends of the Elderly has identified where there were faults in the care provided and has addressed this with the Home. It has apologised to Mrs X and Mrs Y for the faults identified therefore there is no outstanding injustice. We could not add anything to Friends of the Elderly’s previous investigation. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman