Summary: The Ombudsman’s decision is that the care provider was not at fault when it advised it could not provide care for Mrs X after she left hospital.

The complaint

1. The complainant’s representatives, whom I shall refer to as Mrs A and Miss B, complain on behalf of the late Mrs X that the care provider unfairly refused to provide further care in August 2018 when Mrs X was discharged from hospital. They also say it is unfair the care provider sought payment for care charges when the provider did not give a proper period of notice.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
3. 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

4. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant’s representatives. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the representatives. I have made enquiries of the care provider and I have considered the comments and documents it provided. I have also considered the complainant’s representative’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X was paying the care provider directly for a carer to visit her at home. When she went into hospital, she hoped to continue receiving care at home when she was discharged from hospital.
6. However, when the hospital contacted the care provider on the day of intended discharge it said it could not continue to provide care. The care provider then told Mrs A and Miss B it was unable to find another carer because it did not have capacity within its staff. Miss B asked about the contract Mrs X had with the provider and the notice period. She was upset at the way the provider was treating Mrs X. The care provider said a director would call her back, but the director did not call.
7. The care provider called Miss B the next day and explained that the company could not meet Mrs X’s needs. It said it had taken on other contracts. Miss B asked why the provider could not continue as Mrs X had only been in hospital a week. The care provider explained that it did not normally take on contracts in that area and it was difficult as none of its carers drove.
8. Mrs A and Miss B complained to Ombudsman that the care provider had not given notice and had treated Mrs X unfairly. They felt the provider had chosen to “throw Mrs X away” as it could get more lucrative long term clients. They said that they were withholding 30 days charges because of the provider’s failure to give proper notice.
9. The Ombudsman passed the complaint to the care provider as it had not had an opportunity to respond. It replied that it had only taken on the contract on a temporary basis as the carer lived nearby. It had been difficult to provide cover when the main carer was not available. Mrs X had gone into hospital twice and the provider had reinstated care when she was discharged. Miss B had previously said they were not happy with the carer, but the provider had explained it would not be able to offer the service if that carer did not continue. When Mrs X was due to be discharged the provider said it intended to reinstate care. However, the carer did not want to continue because she said Mrs X’s representatives were rude to her. Another care worker who had previously covered the main one was not able to provide cover. The care provider said it did not give up on Mrs X and would have reinstated the service if it had not been for capacity issues. It advised the representatives to contact the Council as it may be able to assist. The provider explained the director had not been able to return their calls as she had been on leave. The representatives had then asked her not to call.
10. The representatives complain that it could not be true that the provider had no other carers available. If the carer was the only one available, they should not have taken on the contract in the first place. They did not consider that they had been rude, but had not been satisfied with some aspects of the carer’s service. They had paid the outstanding care invoice but deducted £1500 for 30 days in lieu of notice.

Analysis

11. I note the representatives do not believe that the agency had no other carers. But I have no reason to believe that this was not the case. The provider has explained the contract was initially on a temporary basis and that it did not normally cover that area. Mrs X and her representatives appear to have expected the same carer to continue. However, the carer was not willing to do so. No other carer was available. Therefore, I do not see there is evidence the provider unfairly refused to reinstate the service. The operational difficulty was outside its control. I have not found fault here.
12. As the provider had reinstated care after periods when Mrs X was in hospital it appears to have intended to continue providing care. But due to the carer and representatives’ relationship breaking down the agency was unable to continue. It appears it had no notice of this itself. I have not seen evidence of fault here as the provider advised Mrs X’s representatives as soon as it was aware.
13. In its response to my enquiries the provider says its contract with service users requires 28 days notice on each side, and it accepts that it did not give this notice. It says that it considered the amount Mrs X’s representative withheld (30 days fees) was unfair, but it decided as a goodwill gesture not to contest this. I do not see there is fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have not found fault by the care provider, so I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman