Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of two members of staff from the Care Provider. I have discontinued my investigation. The injustice Mrs X experienced is not significant enough to justify further investigation into her complaint. In any event, it is unlikely further investigation would result in a different outcome because the Care Provider has deregistered and no longer provides a service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the actions of two members of staff from the Care Provider. She said they were disrespectful and unprofessional, made inappropriate comments on several occasions, changed and cancelled her visits without telling her, regularly sent incorrect and inaccurate invoices and gave
   Mrs X five days to pay instead of 14 as stated in her contract. She has experienced distress and has not had a bath for several months.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided in writing and over the telephone.
4. I considered information from the Care Provider, and Mrs X’s new provider.
5. I wrote to Mrs X and the Care Provider with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X funded her care package from the Care Provider. The package was to provide assistance with bathing once a month. The Care Provider supported her with shopping on one occasion. Mrs X said the Care Provider was supportive overall and previously gave good care.
7. When Mrs X complained to us she said she had not bathed since December 2018, although she can shower without support. Mrs X said she has missed baths on five occasions when an officer changed the time of her visits. When visits were missed, Mrs X had to waste the hot water as she could not bathe without help.

Professionalism

8. Mrs X said an officer was disrespectful, for example they asked Mrs X two weeks after her partner had died when she would find a new boyfriend. They called her “honey” and “sweetie”, which Mrs X found unprofessional. The officer had apologised. Mrs X asked them what for, but they did not respond.
9. Mrs X said an officer had hung up the phone on many occasions. On another occasion, she had finished a conversation with somebody else while
   Mrs X was on the line, and said “goodbye, have a nice day”. Mrs X felt that was unprofessional and a data protection breach. Mrs X said the officer was not professional in the office when she was present. For example, she cuddled and kissed the Registered Manager on one occasion. Mrs X says she tried to speak to the Registered Manager but he never called back. She believed an officer was not passing her messages on.
10. The Care Provider denies that the officer cuddled and kissed the Registered Manager.

Invoices and reviews

11. Mrs X also raised concerns about the Care Provider not having given her enough notice to come and review her care file. The Care Provider said it did not recall that was the case. Mrs X told the Care Provider she did not want an assessor to visit for a review as they were too argumentative.
12. Mrs X said the Care Provider regularly sent her incorrect and inaccurate invoices. These included overcharges and undercharges. She said the Care Provider only gave her five days to pay invoices rather than the 14 days her contract stated. Mrs X always paid on time.

Analysis

13. After considering the information provided by Mrs X and the Care Provider, I have decided to discontinue my investigation. This is for two reasons.

The injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

14. There is a difference between Mrs X’s and the Care Provider’s understanding of the regularity of Mrs X’s care calls. Mrs X received one visit every one or two months. One care call a month is not a large care package. Mrs X can shower without support. Wasted bath water is not a significant injustice.
15. Mrs X experienced some distress due to what she felt were unprofessional communications. However, the injustice these events caused is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
16. There is no suggestion incorrect invoices, or short timescales for paying, caused Mrs X an injustice. The issues Mrs X described, while frustrating for her, have not caused an injustice so significant as to warrant further investigation.

It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

17. The Care Provider apologised to Mrs X and addressed issues with specific officers. The Care Provider has since merged with a new company. It is not possible for me to recommend service improvements to the Care Provider as it is no longer providing care. The staff members Mrs X complained about are not employed by the new provider. I cannot make recommendations of the new provider. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have stopped investigating this complaint. This is because the injustice Mrs X experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman