Summary: Ms C says the Care Provider failed to properly investigate when a carer acted inappropriately while providing respite care, failed to take action and stopped care without notice. The Care Provider’s communications with Ms C were not clear, although it upheld her complaint and took action. The Care Provider stopped care without notice and was unclear in its communications about respite care. An apology, payment to Ms C to reflect her time and trouble and distress, discussion of a payment to reflect damage to a carpet and belongings and commitment to provide notice when stopping care is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complained the Care Provider:
• assigned a carer who acted inappropriately while providing respite care in January 2018;
• failed to properly investigate her concerns;
• failed to take action following the investigation; and
• stopped care without giving the required four week notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a Care Provider’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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Care Provider and considered the comments and documents the Care Provider provided;
• considered Ms C’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Care Provider an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Ms C complained on behalf of her parents about the actions of a carer providing respite care in January 2018. Ms C says the carer had people round to her parent’s house while she was providing respite care where they consumed alcohol and damaged a carpet. Ms C raised those concerns with the Care Provider, along with other concerns about the actions of the carer. The Care Provider visited Ms C and her father on 31 January 2018 to discuss the concerns. Following that meeting the Care Provider interviewed the carer and took a statement from her. The carer admitted causing damage to the carpet and two jumpers. The Care Provider took some disciplinary action against the carer, made a referral to CQC and agreed to take responsibility for paying for a new carpet. The documentary evidence shows some discussion about how the Care Provider would deal with the cost of the new carpet. Correspondence variously referred to the Care Provider sending the matter to its insurance company, the Care Provider making a payment for the carpet and recovering that from the carer and the possibility of payment by instalments. Ms C confirmed in April 2018 she was happy for the Care Provider to pass her details onto the insurance company. I have seen no evidence the Care Provider contacted her insurance company. The Care Provider has not paid for the carpet or the damaged jumpers.
9. The Care Provider stopped providing care in March 2018. The documentary evidence shows Ms C had asked the Care Provider to confirm arrangements for respite care for a holiday later in March 2018. Some correspondence from the Care Provider suggested it could not provide a carer while other correspondence suggested the Care Provider was trying to find somebody to cover the respite period. However, care stopped and the Care Provider did not provide respite care in March 2018.

Analysis

10. Ms C says the Care Provider assigned a carer who acted inappropriately while providing respite care to her parents in January 2018. Ms C says the Care Provider failed to investigate her concerns about that or take action. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Care Provider investigated Ms C’s concerns by interviewing the carer and meeting Ms C and her father. The Care Provider’s complaints procedure though makes clear when responding to a complaint following an investigation the Care Provider should present the findings for each issue clearly and concisely. I do not consider the Care Provider met that in this case given its communications with Ms C did not detail each of its findings for the specific complaints raised. Although the Care Provider upheld the complaint in so far as it confirmed taking disciplinary action against the carer I have seen no evidence it confirmed which of the complaints it had upheld. I understand why that would have caused Ms C some distress and confusion. So, while I am satisfied the Care Provider properly investigated the complaint I do not consider it explained its decision to Ms C about the specific allegations raised. That is fault.
11. I am aware Ms C says the Care Provider did not consider the witness statements she had taken from her parent’s neighbours. I have no evidence Ms C provided most of those statements until some time after the Care Provider completed its investigation of the complaint. As the Care Provider had upheld the complaint as it took disciplinary action against the carer I see no reason for it to consider further evidence.
12. Ms C also says the Care Provider failed to take action. As I said in paragraph 4, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider personnel matters. That includes disciplinary action against a specific member of staff. The Care Provider has detailed the action taken in respect of the member of staff complained of, who no longer works for this Care Provider. Given the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to comment on disciplinary procedures it is not my role to say whether the disciplinary action taken, or any lack of disciplinary action, is suitable. I am, however, satisfied the Care Provider told the Council and CQC about what had happened. I am also satisfied the Care Provider apologised to Ms C for what happened in January 2018. I am therefore satisfied the Care Provider took some action here.
13. I am, however, concerned about what happened for damage to the carpet and jumpers. For the carpet, Ms C says it became damaged while the carer had people over to the house while Ms C was away. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide liability for damage. That would normally be a matter for the Care Provider’s insurance company or the courts. However, in this case the Care Provider has accepted responsibility for damage to the carpet and agreed as early as February 2018 to pay for a replacement carpet. I am concerned despite this agreement the Care Provider has still not provided any payment for the carpet. The Care Provider suggests this is because Ms C wanted a cash payment without going through the insurance company. However, the documentary records do not support that claim. The documentary records show Ms C was willing to accept a payment plan and the Care Provider told Ms C it would contact its insurance company. Ms C had also agreed to have her details passed to the insurance company. Despite that I have seen no evidence of the Care Provider contacting the insurance company. I appreciate this means the Care Provider may no longer be able to claim on the insurance for the carpet. However, the Care Provider accepted responsibility for damage to the carpet in February 2018 and agreed to make a payment to Ms C for a new carpet. Failure to do that is fault. I therefore recommended the Care Provider liaise with Ms C and agree a financial payment for the damage to the carpet. As the carer also accepted responsibility for damaging the jumpers the Care Provider should cover the cost of those. If, however, there is a dispute about the cost of the carpet or the Care Provider’s contribution towards it Ms C will need to consider action in the small claims court as the Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on any dispute about the amount the Care Provider should pay. The Care Provider has agreed to my recommendations.
14. Ms C says the Care Provider stopped care provision without giving her the required four week notice. The Care Provider accepts it ended care provision for Ms C’s mother. However, the Care Provider says it had to do that because Ms C continued to make allegations about the carer to other members of staff when the Care Provider refused to make a cash payment to cover the cost of the carpet. I refer to the issue of the carpet in the previous paragraph, where I have found the Care Provider at fault. Irrespective of the Care Provider’s concerns about Ms C talking to other members of staff about the issues, the service users handbook makes clear the Care Provider has to give a service user four weeks notice before stopping care. For the ongoing care package I have found no evidence the Care Provider gave Ms C four weeks notice before stopping care. Nor have I seen any evidence the Care Provider formally told Ms C of its intention to stop care. Failure to follow the service users handbook here is fault. That left Ms C having to arrange alternative care for her mother at short notice and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint.
15. There was also the issue of the respite care for March 2018. I have seen no evidence the Care Provider had agreed in October 2017 to provide respite care to Ms C’s mother during March 2018, as Ms C alleges. It is clear from the documentary records though there was some discussion about respite. In some messages from the Care Provider it says it could not provide respite care during March while in others there is a suggestion the Care Provider might find somebody to provide respite care. I do not consider it helpful for the Care Provider to leave Ms C with doubt about whether it could provide carers, particularly given the proximity of the messages to the date Ms C needed respite carers. I am also concerned the Care Provider did not follow up with Ms C in writing to confirm whether it could provide respite care. That is fault. That caused Ms C distress as she did not know whether she needed to make alternative arrangements for her mother during her holiday. It also led to Ms C going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. I recommended in future the Care Provider confirm in writing when respite care is agreed and to do the same when no provision can be made. The Care Provider has agreed to that.
16. The Ombudsman does not award compensation in the same way as a court or tribunal might do. But we can recommend a symbolic remedy for avoidable distress. This is often a moderate sum. Here I recommended the Care Provider apologise and pay Ms C £300 to reflect Ms C’s distress at having no firm decision on respite care for March 2018, the cancellation of the care package without notice, the lack of explanation of the Care Provider’s finding for each part of the complaint and the time and trouble she has had to go to in pursuing her complaint. I also recommended the Care Provider apologise to Ms C. The Care Provider has agreed to those recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. Within one month of my decision the Care Provider should:
• apologise to Ms C for the fault identified in this statement; and
• pay Ms C £300; and
• liaise with Ms C to agree an appropriate payment for the replacement of the damaged carpet and jumpers.
18. The Care Provider should ensure in future when receiving requests for respite care it confirm in writing whether it can provide that respite care. The Care Provider should also ensure when terminating care contracts it gives four week notice, in accordance with the service users handbook.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman