Summary: There was fault in the Council’s failure to communicate with Mrs B and Mrs D about a change in care provider. This caused distress to Mrs B and Mrs D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mrs D and pay them £250.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs D. She says the Council failed to communicate with her when it changed the care agency for Mrs D.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the complaint including events up to October 2021. Paragraph 32 explains why I have not investigated events after October 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs B. I have considered the documents that she and the Council have sent and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mrs D is an adult who has a physical disability and mental health issues. She lived at home with a package of support funded by the Council. Care Agency 1 had been providing the care since March 2019. The care package consisted of four care calls a day.
7. At the end of August 2021 Mrs B said she was no longer satisfied with Agency 1’s service. A Council officer discussed Mrs B’s concerns with her on 13 September 2021. The officer said Mrs D’s case had been brought forward for an unscheduled review. Mrs B said she wanted to be involved ‘at all stages of sourcing a new provider for her mum’. She said: ‘she is going to have a think about this as she feels her mum would benefit from 24-hour care.’
8. Agency 1 gave 28 days’ notice on 24 September 2021.
9. The Council commissioned Agency 2, but did not inform Mrs B or Mrs D of the change in care agency. Agency 2 said it could start on 27 September 2021.
10. Mrs B says a man turned up at Mrs D’s address on 27 September 2021 trying to get into her flat. Mrs B rang the Council and found out that a new care agency had been hired. She contacted Agency 2 and told them that Mrs D would not allow men in her flat because of historic events.
11. Agency 2 told the Council that it was trying to arrange an initial assessment of Mrs D. Mrs B would not agree to any of the time slots that the agency offered. She would also not agree to a man entering Mrs D’s flat even though the care agency had assured her that the care workers would all be female. Agency 2 then said it could not meet Mrs B’s demands and withdrew its offer to provide Mrs D’s care package.
12. In the following days, Mrs D’s family said Mrs D needed a 24-hour care placement at a care home, rather than care provided by an agency. The Council found a different agency which could provide the care on 6 October 2021, but Mrs B rejected the offer as the CQC rating for the agency said it needed improvement.
13. On the same day, the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) obtained approval to fund a residential care placement for Mrs D. On 11 October 2021 the Council offered Mrs B direct payments so she could choose an agency to provide the care.
14. The CMHT and the Council carried out a joint visit to Mrs D on 19 October 2021 and offered a placement at a care home, but Mrs B rejected the offer.
15. It is my understanding that in the following months there was a disagreement between the Council and CMHT and Mrs B about Mrs D’s care plan and where she should live.

The complaint

16. Mrs B complained to the Council on 1 October 2021 and said:
• She was not informed that Agency 1 had given notice on 16 September 2021.
• She was not informed that Agency 2 had been commissioned to provide the care. She found out when a man turned up at Mrs D’s flat on 27 September 2021.
• Since then, Mrs D had not received any care from the Council and the family had to provide the care and assistance.
17. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint on 4 April 2022 and explained the process that should have been followed.
• If a care package has been terminated, the commissioning team will inform the social work team of the termination. The social worker will then inform the person affected and address any issues with the care package.
• The social worker then asks the commissioning team to find a new provider.
• Once a new provider has been found, the commissioning team informs the social worker who then informs the person affected.
18. The Council said:
• There was no evidence of communication between the social work team and the commissioning team in Mrs D’s case. The social work team was not informed of what happened so the social worker did not inform Mrs B or Mrs D.
• The commissioning team said there had been communication with Mrs B but could not provide evidence of the communication.
• The Council contacted Agency 2 and Agency 2 said ‘it was unknown that male carers were considered unsuitable, adding they would never knowingly subject anyone to a situation that would cause distress’.
• Since then respite care within a residential setting had been discussed after the Greater Manchester Mental Health Team assessed Mrs D and said she needed residential care. Available care homes were offered but Mrs B felt that they were not appropriate.
• The Council upheld the complaint that the usual process and communication had not taken place when the package of care was transferred.
19. The Council had made the following recommendation to the Director of Adult Social Care to ensure the fault was not repeated:
• Discussions with the relevant person and their families should be prioritised for case recording.
• The current policy and procedures for changes in care providers should be reviewed to ensure that sufficient information was shared.
20. The Council offered a goodwill gesture of £250 to Mrs B and Mrs D.

Other information

21. I asked the Council to send me the assessment of Mrs D’s needs and care plan which were in place in September 2021. The Council has sent me one document which I presume is a combined assessment and care plan. This does not mention the fact that Mrs D should only be supported by female workers.
22. However, I have also read the following case notes:
• Council’s case note dated 2 April 2019. Mrs B sent an email to the Council as male carers had attended a call for Mrs D. Agency 1 said it sent male carers due to shortages and had addressed this. The note said that Mrs D’s care plan was explicit regarding the gender of carers.
• Case note dated 16 October 2020. This related to the Council reallocating the case to a new social worker. Mrs B said Mrs D needed a female worker as she did not engage with male workers.

Analysis

23. There was a significant delay in the Council’s response to Mrs B’s complaint. Mrs B complained on 1 October 2021 and the Council did not respond until 4 April 2022. This was fault.
24. There was fault in the Council’s communication with Mrs B and Mrs D. The Council failed to follow its own process for the change in agency. The Council should have informed Mrs B and Mrs D that Agency 1 had given notice and should have informed them that it was proposing to commission Agency 2. Its failure to do so was fault.
25. This was made worse by the fact that the Council knew that Mrs B wanted to be involved in the sourcing of the new agency and did not involve her at all.
26. I note that the Council did not inform Agency 2 that Mrs D could only be supported by female workers. The case notes of 2 April 2019 and 16 October 2020 show that the Council was informed of this requirement so the Council should have informed Agency 2 of this. Its failure to do so was fault.
27. The fault led to an injustice for Mrs B and Mrs D as an unknown man turned up to Mrs D’s home without any notice. I accept that this caused distress to Mrs B and Mrs D. This also partly contributed to the breakdown of communication with Agency 2 and Agency 2 withdrawing its offer to provide care. Alternative offers of care were made in October 2021, but I accept that, until those offers of care were made, there was injustice to Mrs B and Mrs D.
28. The Ombudsman generally offers between £100 to £300 for distress caused by fault. I note the Council has made an offer of £250 and I agree that this would be an appropriate remedy.
29. I note that the Council has already made service improvement recommendations as a result of the complaint investigation, so I do not recommend any further service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise to Mrs B and Mrs D for the fault.
• Pay Mrs B and Mrs D £250 each to represent the distress caused by the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I note that in later months, after October 2021, there was a disagreement between Mrs B and CMHT and the Council about what Mrs D’s care plan should be and where she should live. I have not investigated that complaint as it is a new complaint. Also, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the CMHT as they are funded by the NHS. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigates complaints about the NHS.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman