The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the way the Council conducted a reassessment of Mr C’s care needs. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.
The complaint
Mrs C complained the Council completed a reassessment of Mr C’s care needs without contacting or discussing the reassessment with them, comments made about her and included in the March reassessment by Mr C’s carers were derogatory and untrue and documented evidence about the way carers hoisted Mr C and his toileting routine were inaccurate. Mrs C says she wants the Council to delete the assessment from its records.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr C has received 4 x double up care calls each day since November 2021 from his current care provider. The Council’s response to Mrs C’s complaint was satisfied everything was working well. It acknowledged Mrs C may not remember having a conversation with the assessor prior to the March reassessment as it was an informal telephone conversation.
The Council says the reassessment took place following this conversation and after a conversation with the Care Provider. The Council apologised that it did not initially send Mrs C a copy of Mr C’s Care Needs Assessment or his March reassessment and also apologised if she felt neither hers or Mr C’s views were considered or reflected in the assessment. The Council explained it is not possible to delete or amend documents on its system but confirmed it will place Mrs C’s complaint and the Council’s response to it on the file. The Council confirmed a further reassessment will be completed to include Mr and Mrs C’s views and comments made by the Care Provider will not be included in it.
The Council has explained the March document cannot be amended or deleted but Mrs C’s complaint and its response will lie on file so it can be read in conjunction with it. It has apologised for failing to send copies of the Care Needs Assessment and review documents and has now done this. It has agreed to complete a further assessment and has confirmed it will not include the remarks Mrs C found offensive. We could not add to this even if we investigated.
Mrs C is concerned about derogatory comments which she says are untrue and defamatory. We could not make a finding on this point. Defamation of character is properly for the court to consider. It would be reasonable for Mrs C to ask the court to consider her claim for defamation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman