Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y. He said Mr Y’s care provider did not provide the agreed care and support detailed in Mr Y’s care plan. This affected Mr Y’s health and wellbeing, and he did not feel he received the care he paid for. We found there was fault by the Council as care visits were often less than the allocated 30 minutes. This caused distress which the Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for. However, we did not find Mr Y’s care needs were not met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y. He said Mr Y’s care provider did not provide the agreed care and support detailed in Mr Y’s care plan. He said the care provider consistently cut the 30-minute visits short, and carers regularly failed to complete the tasks set out in Mr Y’s care plan. On occasion, Mr X said carers left straight away without providing any care at all.
2. This affected Mr Y’s health and wellbeing, and he paid for care he did not receive.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. Councils have a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline 21 Home care: delivering personal care and practical support to older people living in their own homes says public bodies need to:
• Ensure service contracts allow home care workers enough time to provide a good quality service, including having enough time to talk to the person and their carer, and to have sufficient travel time between appointments.
• Ensure workers have time to do their job without being rushed or compromising the dignity or wellbeing of the person who uses services.
10. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (the 2014 Regulations) set out the requirements for safety and quality in care provision. We consider the 2014 Regulations and the Guidance when determining complaints about poor standards of care.
11. Regulation 9 of the 2014 Regulations requires care and treatment to be appropriate, to meet a person’s needs and to reflect their preferences.

What happened

12. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
13. Mr Y suffers from arthritis and reduced mobility. He cannot cook and struggles to hold objects or drinks. He is at risk of dropping or spilling things. He is also at risk of falls.
14. The Council commissioned carers from a care provider to come for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening. Mr Y must contribute to the cost of his care.
15. The care provider’s care plan for Mr Y states he needs support with emotional wellbeing, meal preparation, drinks, and domestic activities. Specifically, it says he needs support making the bed, washing dishes, tidying (including the kitchen), and disposing of waste.
16. Mr X raised concerns with the Council over short care visit times in May 2024. Mr X said carers only spend five to ten minutes with Mr Y, not the contracted 30 minutes. Mr Y decided to withhold payment of fees while the Council investigated.
17. The Council emailed the care provider about visit times after discussing the concerns with Mr X and Mr Y. It asked for evidence carers stay for the allocated time.
18. The care provider told the Council visits between 5 and 20 May 2024 lasted between 20 and 25 minutes. Carers made breakfast and a drink and washed up. They did not do any personal care, as everything else had already been done.
19. Mr X emailed the Council on 3 June 2024 with a summary of costs he estimated the Council incurred because of the care provider’s failure to fulfil the contracted care hours. He sent the Council evidence of his own monitoring of carer visits which he carried out over a three-week period in November 2023. This showed carers should have worked 25 hours in that time but actually worked less than half the time.
20. The Council said it obtained data from the care provider for November 2023 and while visit times varied from 11 to 34 minutes, the care provider did roughly complete the contracted 7 hours per week. The Council also said Mr Y’s contribution was £55.11 per week and care hours would need to be below 2.45 hours a week to be eligible for a refund, which was not the case.
21. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his concerns because the Council was paying more than the service delivered. He said the Council’s analysis was flawed as it only considered the care provider’s figures. He also said the care provider lied about the timings. He referred to his own recordings of care visit times, and said 99.55% were under the contracted 30 minutes. He said this affected other service users, not just Mr Y.
22. The Council logged Mr X’s concerns as a complaint which it responded to on 24 June 2024. The key points it considered were Mr Y’s care hours, whether it was overpaying the service provider, and whether the care provider lied about visit times.
23. The Council said it reviewed the care provider’s timesheets and was satisfied there were no concerns about payments it made. It identified no service failure by the care provider, and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said Mr X could contact the Council if he remained dissatisfied. It also signposted him to the Ombudsman.
24. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He complained about breach of contract by the care provider, and poor service in terms of visit times. He said the Council is overpaying the care provider and it should be investigated.
25. We sent the complaint back to the Council to complete its complaint process.
26. The Council sent Mr X its stage two complaint response on 22 October 2024. It said it obtained all care logs for the relevant period from the care provider, and they showed average call times of 20 minutes. It said most calls were over 20 minutes. The Council also said it includes travel time when paying the care provider, which meant all calls exceeded the half hour commissioned.
27. The Council said the care provider told it Mr Y was happy with his care visits and carers always ask if there is anything more they can do before leaving. There were no concerns about the care provider’s call times, or the service provided. The Council said Mr Y paid a contribution to his homecare but not the full amount, and a reduction in costs would not be suitable, particularly where it found no fault in the care received.

My investigation

28. Mr X told me his complaint is not just about care times, but the care tasks as well. He said carers make Mr Y a cup of tea and breakfast, but they do not regularly do the other tasks in his care plan (such as washing up, tidying, making/changing the bed, checking food is in date, or preparing lunch/snacks). Carers will ask Mr Y if he needs anything else urgently. When he says no, they will leave. Mr Y enjoys speaking to people. This is a recognised part of his social wellbeing needs included in his care plan, but most carers do not sit and talk with him.
29. Mr X said the issues started in around March or April 2023, and he completed his own survey of care visits in November 2023 to record the problem. Mr X believes the information being passed to the Council by the care provider is not correct. He said the care provider completed surveys with Mr Y, but the details recorded were not an accurate picture of his experience. Mr X made corrections to the survey responses, but the care provider still did not update the information correctly.
30. Mr X said the care provider is now relying on Global Positioning System (GPS) data. However, GPS only records when carers are in the area, not in Mr Y’s home. Mr X said it is not proof of how long carers stay with Mr Y, or what care tasks they complete.
31. Mr X told me there have been short visits throughout the time of his complaint, though visit times have improved recently.
32. The Council said Mr X’s complaint was about the length of care calls and his belief the Council was being overcharged by the care provider. The Council investigated this but was told by the care provider that care times are usually above 20 minutes.
33. The Council told me it visited Mr Y to review his care needs in December 2023 but did not need to make any changes to his care package. It completed a review of Mr Y’s needs with the care provider in March 2024. Again, it did not need to make any changes to Mr Y’s care package. The Council held another review in February 2025 where Mr Y’s care package stayed the same. The Council asked Mr Y if he would like to change care provider, but he declined.
34. Mr X said this is inaccurate. Mr Y did not say he did not want to change care provider. What he said was that he would like to change, if some of the carers that do things correctly could move to the new company as well.

Analysis

35. Mr X’s complaint to the Council focused on the cost to the Council, not just in respect of Mr Y but other service users, if the care provider cut visits short. Mr X did not raise any concerns at that stage about Mr Y’s care, or about the care provider missing care tasks.
36. During the period of Mr X’s monitoring, he said there were six occasions carers arrived but did not stay. This does not tally with the care provider’s records. Carers recorded attending and carrying out care tasks on these days.
37. The care provider’s telephone logs do not show any reports of missed visits in November 2023, but there was a report in October 2023, and an occasion in December 2023 where the carer was late so Mr Y cancelled the visit.
38. The Council said it did not identify any service failure by the care provider. That was despite acknowledging visits lasted 20 minutes on average. Unfortunately, the Council did not expand on its findings. It did touch on the fact that Mr Y had not reported any issues with the care he received, but did not consider this in further detail. That was a missed opportunity. Although this was not something Mr X raised, the Council should have looked at the bigger picture and considered whether carers were staying for enough time to meet Mr Y’s needs as set out in his care plan.
39. I can appreciate Mr X’s frustration with the Council’s complaint response, as the Council appeared to accept the care provider’s records of visit times and did not comment on Mr X’s records.
40. I found Mr X’s and the carer provider’s visit time logs differ quite significantly. It is difficult for me to say what happened here, as there is no independent verifiable evidence. Both logs rely on manual inputting of arrival and exit times. Mr X said the care provider gave the Council incorrect information, but I have not seen enough evidence to back this up.
41. However, shorter visit times do not in themselves mean Mr Y suffered a significant injustice in terms of the care he received. It depends on the care tasks completed, and whether the care provider consistently met Mr Y’s care and support needs.
42. Mr Y’s care plan states he needs support with emotional wellbeing, meal preparation, drinks, and domestic activities. Specifically, it says he needs support making the bed, washing dishes, tidying (including the kitchen), and disposing of waste.
43. Mr X recorded visit times in November 2023. I considered the care provider’s logs for this period, as well as the months of October and December 2023. At that time, carers visited Mr Y in the morning and evening. Carers recorded six visits lasting less than 20 minutes in October, and eight visits of under 20 minutes in both November and December.
44. I found carers always made Mr Y breakfast and drinks in the morning. They did not do personal care, as Mr Y was dressed and ready when they arrived. Carers often recorded chatting to Mr Y, but not always. Carers regularly recorded washing up or tidying the kitchen or emptying the bin, but again not always. They also occasionally recorded making Mr Y’s bed.
45. For evening visits, carers consistently recorded giving Mr Y a snack and drink, and they usually recorded chatting to him. They occasionally recorded doing dishes or cleaning the kitchen, but not always.
46. I also saw the care provider’s call logs from January 2024 to February 2025. The visit times ranged between 20 and 32 minutes. There were no visits recorded under 10 minutes. Carers recorded making Mr Y breakfast and drinks. They usually recorded having a chat and washing up or cleaning the kitchen surfaces.
47. Over the period I investigated, there were frequent occasions where care visits lasted less than the allocated 30 minutes Mr Y was supposed to receive. There were also occasions where visits lasted less than 20 minutes. This is fault. It caused Mr Y avoidable frustration and distress, and he did not feel he received the service he paid for.
48. However, I did not see evidence this meant carers could not meet Mr Y’s care needs. I found carers completed the core tasks to meet Mr Y’s care and support needs. I did not see evidence Mr Y raised concerns about the care he received, or that Mr Y was asking carers to do more tasks and they failed to do so. I therefore do not recommend any reimbursement of the care fees Mr Y paid.

Back to top

Agreed Action

49. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the service of the care provider and make the following recommendations to the Council.
50. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr Y for care visits frequently lasting less than the allocated 30 minutes.
• Pay Mr Y £200 to recognise the avoidable frustration and distress he suffered.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

52. I found there was fault by the Council as care visits were often less than the allocated 30 minutes. However, I did not find Mr Y’s care needs were not met.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman