Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council dealing with his concerns about his son’s, Mr B’s care provider. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Mr A to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A can ask the court to consider whether his evidence meets the threshold for a claim of defamation, and it would be reasonable for him to use this remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr A says the Council should properly investigate the lies and incompetence of his son’s, Mr B’s, care provider following a safeguarding investigation into an incident in 2017 when it alleged Mr A told carers Mr B should not be given medication. Mr A says:

• Care staff are incompetent, have lied and recorded false information about him;
• Care staff have wrongly accused him of shouting, have raised safeguarding alerts about him and reported him to the police;
• Care staff ordered ointment instead of cream for Mr B resulting in additional inconvenience for Mr A;
• The Council has failed to properly investigate his complaints or take action against the care provider.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the concerns with Mr A and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr A complains the Council has failed to properly investigate his concerns about Mr B’s care provider.
7. Mr A says Mr B’s care provider has recorded lies about him and reported him to the police. Mr A says he has recordings to evidence he has not shouted as alleged, email evidence that Mr B’s care provider has lied about him and support from the police that the actions he has taken are reasonable and he is acting in the best interests of his son.
8. Mr A says the allegations made by the care provider about him is slander. Defamation is properly for the courts to consider and it would be reasonable for Mr A to ask the court to consider whether the evidence he has demonstrates the care provider’s actions are slanderous and defamatory.
9. Mr A says he has reported his concerns about false information contained in records to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) but it is not taking further action. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the ICO. If Mr A is unhappy with the ICO’s decision he can complain. Information about making a complaint to the ICO can be found on the website below:

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complaints-and-compliments-about-us/complain-about-us/

10. Mr A can ask the Council to put a copy of his version of events and understandings of the inaccuracies and disputed information to lie on file and to be considered in conjunction with the Council’s records.
11. Mr A ‘s initial concerns about not administering Mr B’s medication in line with his GP’s instructions has now been confirmed by his GP. There is no ongoing injustice warranting further investigation.
12. Mr A says Mrs B’s care provider ordered wrong medication for him resulting in him having to make numerous trips to his GP and pharmacist. While this will have caused Mr A some inconvenience there is no significant injustice warranting investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. Mr A is concerned the care provider is not being held accountable or reprimanded for its actions. How a Council deals with individual staff members are personnel matters and not ones the Ombudsman can consider.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Mr A to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A can ask the court to consider whether his evidence meets the threshold for a claim of defamation, and it would be reasonable for him to use this remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman