Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

Figure 7Joint investigations conducted during 2007-08In hand at1 April 2007Accepted inthe yearReported onin the yearIn hand at1 April 2008Health Service Ombudsman for England and LocalGovernment Ombudsman for England2 7 1 8UK Parliamentary Ombudsman and Local GovernmentOmbudsman for England1 - - 1Health Service Ombudsman for England and Public ServicesOmbudsman for Wales1 1 1 1UK Parliamentary Ombudsman and Public ServicesOmbudsman for Wales1 - 1 -Total joint investigations 5 8 3 10Although the number of cases acceptedfor joint investigation is still low, weexpect it to rise steadily in the next fewyears. There were ten joint investigationsin hand at the start of 2008-09 and morecases have been accepted forinvestigation since then. Working jointlyand effectively with other Ombudsmenin the UK where we can do so will providecomplainants with a better service. Ourown Principles of Good Administrationinclude, under ‘Being customer focused’,the need to respond to customers’ needsflexibly including, where appropriate,co-ordinating a response with otherservice providers.Injustice in residential careIn March 2008 we published our firstjoint report with the Local GovernmentOmbudsman for England using the newpowers under the RRO: Injustice inresidential care: A joint report by theLocal Government Ombudsman and theHealth Service Ombudsman for England.The report detailed the investigationsinto complaints made to the LocalGovernment Ombudsman and theHealth Service Ombudsman againstBuckinghamshire County Council andOxfordshire & Buckinghamshire MentalHealth Partnership NHS Trust 2 respectively.The complaints were made by Mr andMrs T about the care provided to theirson, Mr U, an adult with severe learningdisabilities (see case study 22). Ourinvestigations found that there had beenmaladministration by both the Counciland the Trust, both in the level of careMr U received and in the way in whichMr and Mrs T’s complaints were handled,which resulted in unremedied injusticefor Mr U and his parents.The involvement of both the Trust andCouncil in the case was a complicatingfactor from the outset. Although Mr U’sparents voiced their concerns to bothbodies, there was delay in responding tothese concerns, and a great deal ofconfusion as to which body shouldaddress the separate aspects of thecomplaint. Had the RRO been in forcewhen we first received the complaintsfrom Mr and Mrs T, we could immediatelyhave initiated a joint investigation whichmight have resulted in a faster resolutionof the complaints for Mr and Mrs T andMr U. Nevertheless, having the statutorypower to issue a joint report on ourseparate investigations was invaluablein ensuring that the Ombudsmen wereable to consider maladministration, andany resulting injustice, in the round.This, in turn, allowed them to focus onrecommending a remedy in the round,which reflected the injustice experiencedby Mr and Mrs T and their son, ratherthan the constraints imposed byjurisdictional boundaries and differentcomplaint procedures.Mr U’s case provides an example of wherehuman rights concerns were an explicitconsideration during the investigation.522During the period covering the events detailed in the report, the predecessor Trust was known as Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Trust.