Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned care provider sending male carers to do personal care visits to his mother Mrs Y, delaying its assessment of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for Mrs Y and how it did that assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council allocating Mrs Y’s visits to male carers nor in the DFG decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the reasons for the use of male carers would not result in a different finding or outcome. The time taken by the DFG process did not cause sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Mrs Y’s son. Mrs Y receives morning home visits to help with her personal care. The care firm was commissioned by the Council and Mrs Y pays towards it. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has failed to manage the care firm to provide male carers, when Mrs Y has requested female carers;
2. has made errors in its assessment of Mrs Y during the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process;
3. delayed its assessment of Mrs Y for a DFG.
2. Mr X believes the use of male carers was victimisation of Mrs Y which happened after he questioned what support carers provide during their visits. Mr X says Mrs Y has lost her pride and dignity from being helped to shower by male carers. He says the lack of the DFG work means Mrs Y has lost her independence as she could shower without support if she had more room to in her bathroom. Mr X says Mrs Y feels stressed waiting for the carer as they are mostly male ones.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to Mr X’s complaint about the use of male carers, the Council referred to Mrs Y’s file. The records they found indicate Mrs Y did not say she required female carers for all or most of her visits before care began and did not raise it as an issue previously. Mrs Y is entitled to make a later request for female carers as part of the complaint. But we could not say it was fault for the Council to have its commissioned provider send male carers previously. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in allocating some of Mrs Y’s visits to male carers to warrant us investigating.
8. We note Mr X believes the care provider started sending male carers more often to victimise Mrs Y, because he questioned what work the carers do during visits. The Council notes the number of male carer visits went up and made up more than half. But the Council denies this was a deliberate decision made by it or the care provider. An investigation by us would not allow us to make a finding that this was done intentionally due to Mr X’s queries or challenges, rather than for other reasons such as changes to the care provider staff. It is unlikely there would be evidence available to us to make such a finding. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome on this issue so we will not investigate.
9. The Council has advised Mr X that he and Mrs Y may ask to reallocate her care visits to a firm with more female carers. Officers have also advised that if Mr X and Mrs Y wish to receive Direct Payments (DPs) of any money provided by the Council towards her care, to help buy in their own choice of carers, the Council could arrange this. If these are options Mrs Y wishes to pursue, to reduce the possibility of having a male carer, she should contact the Council.
10. Mr X considers the Council has not agreed a DFG for work to Mrs Y’s bathroom because of errors in the process. He says officers wrongly concluded Mrs Y plans to move from the property, and misrepresented the work carers do for her. The Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) has explained their reasons for not recommending the proposed DFG work. The Council would not recommend works to a property where it considers other measures may resolve an accessibility issue and would first try changes to equipment. The OT visited and gave their professional judgement on the equipment Mrs Y may try to allow her to shower without a carer. We recognise Mr X disagrees that this will work or be suitable for Mrs Y. But the Council has followed the proper process to assess Mrs Y’s needs and make its professional recommendations. We cannot go behind or alter a council decision which has been properly made because someone disagrees with it.
11. We recognise it took the Council several months to make its DFG decision. But we cannot say the works Mr X considers should be done were delayed by the time the assessment took, because the OT did not recommend the DFG works. There is insufficient injustice to Mrs Y caused by any delay in the DFG process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council allocating Mrs Y’s visits to male carers to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the reasons for the use of male carers would not result in a different finding or outcome; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the DFG decision-making process to warrant investigation; and
• the time taken by the DFG process did not cause sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman