Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the quality of care provided by her father’s care provider. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault and some matters are outside of our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the quality of care provided by her father’s care provider. She complains:
• The care provider failed to update her father’s care plan.
• Carers had left her father’s front door open and failed to contact her about these incidents.
• There was poor continuity of carers.
• Carers had not given her father’s medication appropriately.
• Her father was charged for care not received.

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 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 an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s father, Mr Z, received a home care package from the care provider.
6. In response to her complaint, the care provider detailed:
• Mr X’s care plan had been updated. The latest care plan was completed in November 2024, following a visit to Mr Z.
• It was accepted that some carers might change week to week due to accounting for sickness, leave and new joiners/leavers. However, the same five carers covered 75% of Mr Z’s care calls.
• Accepts there had been occasions where Mr Z’s medication had been missed. Said this was oversight by the individual carer and corrective action taken.
• The carer had recalled closing and locking Mr Z’s front door. However, team had been fully briefed to ensure they double check the security of the property when they enter and leave the property.
• Ms X was given clear information that if she wished to maintain her father’s call times while he was in hospital, these would be chargeable. This was because the care provider needed to schedule the calls to a carer and they would need to pay the carer for the call.
7. Ms X confirmed the care provider has given her a copy of the updated care plan. It is acknowledged the issues appears to be with the care provider’s online portal not showing the most up to date care plan. The care provider said they had checked and could not identify any issue with their system that was preventing Ms X from viewing the latest care plan. An investigation is not justified on this point as there is nothing further an investigation would achieve.
8. Regarding continuity of care, the evidence shows the care provider is trying to ensure the carers that attend to Mr Z are consistent and that most calls are attended by the same carers. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings, especially as we cannot make any recommendations to tell care providers how to manage their resources.
9. It has been acknowledged by the care provider that there had been medication errors. The care provider has apologised and taken corrective action to prevent this from reoccurring. Ms X has not raised any new concerns around medication, so it appears the corrective action has been successful. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is no further worthwhile outcomes.
10. There also appears to be some conflicting evidence regarding whether Mr Z’s front door had been left unsecured after calls. Ms X has evidence from independent third parties that her father’s door was found unsecured, but the carer’s evidence is that they had locked and secured the door. An investigation is not likely to reach any findings on this point due to the conflicting evidence. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate.
11. Finally, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the care provider for charging Mr Z for care calls not received. This is because the evidence provided shows its was Ms X’s decision to keep the care calls scheduled for her father to ensure care can continue should he be discharged suddenly from the hospital. The care provider also confirmed it provided information to Ms X that the calls would be charged for.
12. I understand Ms X’s complaint may be more about the carers not being paid for the calls, despite her father being charged for them. However, this is not a matter we can investigated as it is out of our jurisdiction as it is a personnel matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault and some matters are outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman