Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother Mrs Y’s domiciliary care, arranged by the Council. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs Y, Mr X or other family to warrant us investigating and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Mrs Y’s son. Mrs Y was receiving domiciliary care, commissioned from care firms by the Council, and making a financial contribution to her provision. In spring 2024, Mrs Y’s care firms changed. Mr X complains:
1. the new care providers missed Mrs Y’s morning call on their first day;
2. the care firm’s staff failed to raise Mrs Y’s side rails on her bed;
3. care staff left pain medication within Mrs Y’s reach;
4. carers failed to change Mrs Y’s night dress when it was dirty.
2. Mr X is upset that Mrs Y was not looked after properly and safely when her carers changed. He says paramedics took Mrs Y to hospital because the care was unsafe. Mr X says it is unfair Mrs Y has to pay the charge for the period in question and wants the Council to waive the £170 in fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We recognise Mr X is upset the new carers for Mrs Y in spring 2024 made various errors with her care. But none of the issues complained of, which happened over three days, warrant us investigating. Mrs Y was not caused significant harm by any of the incidents reported. She received the missed care visit later in the morning of the first day after family raised it with the carers and Council. Mr X does not state Mrs Y suffered personal harm from the bed rails, pain medication and personal care matters raised here. We note Mr X says paramedics took Mrs Y to hospital because they felt the care provision was unsafe. But we could not say Mrs Y’s hospitalisation directly stemmed from the care situation and not instead from a medical issue paramedics decided required her to receive hospital treatment. Even if we could make that finding, Mr X does not state Mrs Y was affected significantly by her hospital admission in a way which caused her injustice. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mrs Y, or from Mr X’s upset, caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating, so we will not do so.
6. The Council apologised for the miscommunication which led to the delayed first care visit. This is the outcome we would have sought had we investigated this issue and investigation of it now would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman