Summary: Mrs X complains that the Care Provider failed to provide a carer to do shopping as agreed. She also says the carer was not adequately trained. This caused Mrs X distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused Mrs X injustice and recommends it apologise and refund her £1,500.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains that Independent People Homecare Services (the Care Provider):
• Failed to provide a carer to do the shopping despite agreeing this;
• Provided a carer who was not adequately prepared for live in care.
2. Mrs X says this caused her much stress and inconvenience at a time when she was in need of care and support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
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. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
7. I will send both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and will take account of the comments I receive in response

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mrs X needed an operation. She lived alone and needed support on returning home while she recovered. Mrs X says although she has family and friends who were willing to help, they had their own difficulties and she did not want to put them to any trouble.
9. Mrs X contacted Independent People Homecare Services (the Care Provider) and requested a live in carer for two weeks in September 2018. She paid £3,000 in advance.
10. When she arranged the care, Mrs X did not know how much support she would need as this would not be clear until after the operation. The Care Provider noted she would have “physical limitations during her recovery period”. It noted she may be in pain and “will find it particularly uncomfortable to walk initially”.
11. Aside from some limited help with personal care, Mrs X’s care plan included:
• shopping as required until she is well and fully recovered.
• Hoovering, dusting, laundry, and ironing as required

The carer was entitled to a two hour break daily.

12. Mrs X says she asked for a carer with transport because she lives in a rural area but neither of the carers had transport. The walk to the nearest shop takes over an hour each way along a busy main road so the carer had no means of getting shopping. The Care Provider says it advised Mrs X that it could not provide a carer with transport; Mrs X disagrees.
13. The Care Provider brought Carer A to Mrs X’s home. Mrs X says she was told carer A had planned to take a driving test shortly before the placement but did not, so could not drive. On the second day, carer A had some bad news and had to leave; carer B arrived. Carer B also could not drive. Mrs X says carer B lacked basic knowledge of domestic duties and had not been adequately trained; it was her first placement and first experience of care. The issues Mrs X raised included:
• The washing line collapsed with the washing because she had not put it up properly.
• She did not know how to clean the bathroom properly.
• She didn’t know how to hang washing or what a clothes prop was.
• She left the oven on because she wasn’t sure how to turn it off and
• She put cutlery and pans away still wet.
14. On the third day, carer B contacted the Care Provider because she did not know how she would do the shopping. Mrs X suggested the Care Provider pay for a taxi once a week but it said it would not do this. Mrs X had to ask her neighbours to do this for her and had to have ready meals to limit the number of shopping trips. Additionally, Mrs X had to provide ready meals for the carer.
15. Mrs X says carer B did not know how to iron and she put ready meals in the oven without removing or piercing the plastic film.
16. After one week, the Care Provider offered Mrs X another carer but she declined as she did not want further disruption and stress. She was getting better and more independent, and while shopping had been an issue, she had already inconvenienced her neighbours. Carer B was improving and Mrs X found her easy to get along with; she did not want a third carer within a week.
17. Mrs X contacted the Care Provider after another two days because carer B was not well and needed personal items. The Care Provider told carer B to walk to the shop and offered Mrs X another carer. With only a few days to go, Mrs X declined and arranged for a family member to get the items for carer B.
18. Mrs X asked for a partial refund because she did not receive the service she paid for. The Care Provider’s letter to Mrs X states that Mrs X “cancelled all further care with immediate effect”. “However, [Mrs X] did sign a legal contract which confirms a 28 day termination period is required when cancelling any care”. It said therefore, no refund was due. This meant the Care Provider was suggesting she give 28 days’ notice on a 14 day prepaid contract. Mrs X says she received two weeks of care which was what she had paid for except the carer could not adequately complete the agreed tasks. The lack of shopping and inexperience of the carer inconvenienced Mrs X’s friends and family and caused Mrs X much distress.

Did the Care Provider’s actions cause injustice?

19. The Care Provider did not deal with this situation adequately and its response was unhelpful and confusing as Mrs X had already paid in advance for the full two weeks. There was no need for her to give 28 days’ notice.
20. I cannot say carer B was not trained adequately because it would be difficult to ensure carers were able to deal with the myriad of possible equipment. We also cannot say it was lack of training that led to carer B’s lack of personal preparation for her stay although it is possible. In any case, the Care Provider would have avoided much of this problem had it provided a carer with transport. I saw no record it advised Mrs X it could not provide a carer with transport. Had this been the case it should have removed shopping from the care plan. It agreed to provide shopping and it did not.
21. In agreeing to provide a carer to do the shopping but not providing this, the Care Provider caused significant and avoidable distress to Mrs X. She had already had a change of carer and was recovering from an operation. In some respects, she was caring for the carer who was clearly inexperienced. It is not surprising that, after one week, when the Care Provider offered another carer she did not want the disruption. If the Care Provider had a carer available with transport, it could have sent one just to do the shopping without the upheaval of moving in to replace carer B. It could also have paid for a taxi to take the carer to and from the shops once a week; this would have been an acceptable resolution.
22. The Care Provider did not adequately meet Mrs X’s needs, as detailed on the care plan, to a significant degree, and therefore I have concluded the Care Provider should reimburse Mrs X with 50% of the fees paid.

Recommended action

23. To put right the injustice it caused, I recommended the Care Provider:
• Apologise to Mrs X for its failure to deal adequately with her complaint and the difficult situation it had created.
• Reimburse Mrs X with £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to provide a carer who could do the shopping as agreed.
• Complete these actions within one month of the final decision and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman including a copy of the apology letter.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaints that the Care Provider:
• failed to provide a carer to do the shopping despite agreeing this.
• provided a carer who was not adequately prepared for live in care.
25. Mrs X has been caused an injustice by the actions of the care provider and I have recommended it take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman