It's a long story. She did nearly die - she was admitted to Epsom Hospital and on the third night her BP went down to something like 35 over 18, I mean that's end of days stuff, she was there for a month and a half and we arranged her a place at the Reigate Beaumont on fast-track NHS Continuing Healthcare. It was around this time of year, April.
Nobody got into trouble for it - and despite the Hospital saying they were dropping like flies at the other care home, and the CQC having visited (but nobody was informed about this) the care home had a 'Good' record from the CQC for half a year, til I phoned them up to complain - the bloke informed me, oh, yes, they'd been failed on all counts since their visit in Feb! So I took it to the press, around October that same year.
While it took a long time for it to dawn on me that the reason the Reigate Beaumont had it in for us that Christmas was because Surrey County Council had set us up, and were trying to get back at me via Mum at the new care home, it seems it was also because I'd noticed they weren't giving her sufficient drink, we had to come in daily and do it ourselves. Basically, it's the Liverpool Care Pathway, which was meant to be phased out that year. If they can guesstimate the elderly person has less than 3 months to live, I understand, then they can kill them off via dehydration. My understanding is that 'passive euthanasia' is legal though undertstandably the don't advertise that.
So if you ever read these stories in the tabloids of relatives being barred from the care home for 'abuse and intimidation' it's most likely because they've been raising concerns about poor care, little realising that if it's been secretly assessed the resident has less than 3 months to live, they won't get good care anyway, and that includes daily fluid intake.
It looks like Barchester's Reigate Beaumont were scared I'd figured out what was going on (I had, but didn't realise the low fluid thing was deliberate) and was going to take it to the press. So in a state of alert they contacted the Safeguarding team at Surrey and they arranged a hit job - this isn't actionable btw, it all came out in a Subject Access Request but the press couldn't run it. The aim was to have my sister and me barred from the home after some trumped up charged so they could do as they pleased; we got her out without their permission and she lived another three years pretty much.
A story in the Telegraph in Feb this year about a Barchester care home mentioned 'dehydration' - that seems to be a newspaper's way of tipping off those in the know about what is really going on.
You can take it to anyone you like - the CQC, the NMC, your local MP, the Police - nobody will ever be held to account and they all seem to know what's going on and will be keen to mess you about.
Compared to all this, someone on the Council pulling a few strings to get someone a job seems very small beer!