Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about allegations made by his carer. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Claims of defamation and libel are properly for the courts to consider and it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the court to consider his claim.

The complaint

1. Mr B says a carer filed a false statement about him and this was actively encouraged and supported by her employer, Mr B’s Care Provider, and the Council. Mr B says the police were involved and found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Mr B says the police are considering whether the carer made a false report. Mr B says the allegations have caused him ongoing distress and anxiety and should never have been allowed to become part of a police investigation. Mr B says if the Council had properly considered what was being alleged and had spoken to him about the allegations it would not have gone this far. Mr B wants the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns about the Care Provider and the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B disputes the allegations made by a carer and reported to the police by his Care Provider on advice from the Council. The police found no evidence to substantiate the allegations and took no further action.
7. Mr B says there was no evidence because the accusations were false. Mr B says the Ombudsman should investigate these matters given the position of trust the carer has with vulnerable clients.
8. Although the police found no evidence and took no action it would be for the police to decide whether there are any criminal matters arising from the reporting of them. The carer reported her concerns to her employer, Mr B’s Care Provider, who took advice from the Council to report them to the police. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council or the Care Provider to warrant an Ombudsman investigation regarding this point. The accusations made were of a criminal nature and only the police can consider criminal matters.
9. Mr B says he has suffered ongoing anxiety and distress because of the false allegations made against him. We were not in the room when the carer allegedly saw what she claimed and heard what she said Mr B had said. We could not say the allegations were false and further investigation could not make a different finding. Claims of defamation of character are properly for the courts to determine not the Ombudsman and it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the court to consider his concerns about false information which he says were without merit, fabricated and invented.
10. Mr B complained to the Council about an invoice he received for his care. The Council agreed to waive the invoice and confirmed there were no charges outstanding. There is no ongoing injustice to Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation into this point.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not make a finding of the kind he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman