Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care provided by a care provider. The Council provided a proportionate remedy so an investigation would not achieve more for Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the poor standard of care provided to Mr and Mrs Y by the Council’s commissioned care provider. Mrs X also complained that the Council’s decision not to cancel all the care fees incurred by Mr and Mrs Y was unreasonable. Mrs X say that Mr and Mrs Y were caused significant distress from the poor care and she was put to avoidable time and trouble in having to contact the Council about the care.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council arranged for a care provider to provide home care for Mr and Mrs Y. They cancelled the care package after approximately three weeks. Mrs X complained to the care provider about the standard of care provided to Mr and Mrs Y. These complaints included that the carers did not administer Mr and Mrs Y’s medication and specific issues with the care provided to Mr Y. Mrs X also complained to the Council.
7. The care provider and Council acknowledged some faults in how it had dealt with Mr and Mrs Y’s care package. The care provider said it should have carried out a face to face assessment, rather than a telephone assessment, with Mr and Mrs Y at the start of the care package. The Council acknowledged officers provided conflicting information about its medication policy. The Council said it did not action requests to reduce the care calls to Mr and Mrs Y as quickly as it should have done. It also did not inform Mr and Mrs Y about its care cancellation policy and delayed in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint. The Council did not find evidence of poor care.
8. The Council cancelled care fees of £520.49 and £321.20 for Mr and Mrs Y respectively to remedy the complaint. These fees were for approximately two weeks of care. Mrs X considered the Council should cancel all the care fees to reflect the distress caused and the time and trouble caused to Mrs X.
9. We will not investigate the complaint. The remedy provided by the Council is sufficient and proportionate to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y by the faults identified by the care provider and Council. It is at the higher end of what we would recommend for any poor care and distress. Even if we investigated and found further fault and injustice, it is unlikely we would recommend the Council cancel all the care fees.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate the complaint because the Council provided an appropriate remedy and an investigation would not achieve any more for Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman