Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his stepfather, Mr D, who is now deceased. Mr X complained about Way Ahead Community Services Limited’s (the care provider) decision to terminate Mr D’s care package at short notice. Mr X said the matter caused Mr D anxiety and confusion. Mr X also complained the care provider’s final invoice was £381 too much. The care provider was not at fault for terminating Mr D’s care package. It made the decision in line with the terms and conditions of the contract and provided Mr X with adequate details and reasons for its decision. The care provider was at fault for issuing an incorrect final invoice which was £381 too much. It agreed to issue Mr X with a fresh invoice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his stepfather, Mr D who is now deceased. Mr X complains about Way Ahead Community Services Limited’s (the care provider) decision to terminate Mr D’s care package at short notice. Mr X says the matter caused Mr D anxiety and confusion. In addition, Mr X complains the final bill was £381 too much and was incorrectly sent to Mr D’s wife, Mrs F, which caused further stress and confusion.

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. If we are satisfied with the 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
6. I considered the care provider’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the care provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. In November 2018 the care provider started providing live in care for Mr D after he had a stroke. Mr D lived at home with his wife, Mrs F. Mrs F had been Mr D’s main carer, but said she needed some assistance going forward. The care contract showed the carer would stay in a private room at Mr D’s house. The care provider provided a main carer who worked five weeks on and one week off. It provided a relief carer in-between. Mr X and his sister Mrs Y were the main points of contact for the care provider.
9. The carer provided Mr D with live in care during November and December 2018 and then at the start of January 2019. The relief carer cared for Mr D for one week during December.
10. At the start of January 2019, the care provider wrote to Mrs Y and informed her it was having trouble sourcing care cover for Mr D’s main carer during their week off in January. The care provider said the relief carer who covered in December 2018 was unwilling to return due to the manner in which Mrs F spoke to her. The care provider asked whether any family members could assist during that week.
11. A few days later, the care provider wrote to Mrs Y again. It said it had decided to terminate Mr D’s care contract. The care provider said it had made the decision in line with the terms and conditions within Mr D’s contract. The terms and conditions allowed the care provider to withdraw staff or cancel the agreement with immediate effect in circumstances which in its opinion made continuation of the services unsustainable. The terms said that would include unreasonable or irrational behaviour.
12. The care provider said in the letter that Mr D’s main carer had bought further information to its attention about the way Mrs F treated and spoke to them which made the delivery of service untenable. The carer alleged Mrs F was impolite and confrontational. The carer said they were no longer willing to return and care for Mr D and said if made to do so would leave her employment. The carer said Mrs F had also offered them cash for working additional hours which was also in breach of the terms and conditions. The care provider said it had no alternative but conclude the package of care was unsustainable and under the contract’s terms it was withdrawing services with immediate effect. The care provider said the carer was willing to stay in place for another week, but it was unable to provide a replacement member of staff after that point.
13. Following the care provider’s letter Mr X wrote to it. He said he had spoken with the carer who told him they had not decided to terminate the contract. Mr X said he wanted clarification on the matter. The care provider called Mr X and told him the decision to terminate the contact was a management decision, and the carer was not involved in the decision.
14. Following further calls from Mr X and Mrs F about the matter the care provider decided to withdraw the carer earlier than planned. The carer left and the carer provider’s services to Mr D ended.
15. Mr X and Mrs Y continued to write to the care provider about the matter. They asked it for further details on the carer’s request to leave her position and the reasoning behind the management decision to allow her to do so. They said they wanted to avoid similar problems with Mr D’s new care provider.
16. The care provider responded and said it had already set out reasons to terminate the contract in its previous letter. The care provider said it removed the carer earlier than planned because Mrs F continued to question them about the matter which made them feel uncomfortable.
17. Mr X formally complained to the care provider. He said he and Mrs Y had repeatedly asked for details about the decision to terminate Mr D’s package of care. Mr X said the care provider’s responses were vague. Mr X said if the situation was a matter of safety he needed to know. Mr X said the care provider had deemed the situation serious enough to withdraw its staff but was unwilling to provide him with specific details. Mr X said it appeared that there was a safeguarding matter, but the care provider would not say what it was.
18. The care provider responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said Mr D’s main carer reported their concerns to it about the way Mrs F had treated them and said they were unwilling to return and care for Mr D. The care provider said that due to the seriousness of the concerns the carer raised it decided to terminate Mr D’s care package. The care provider said it was a small service and did not have a large pool of staff to replace Mr D’s carer. The care provider said it acted in accordance with the contract which allowed it to terminate a care package for ‘unreasonable and irrational behaviour’. The care provider said it did not believe it was a safeguarding matter. It said it had no choice to terminate Mr D’s package in the circumstances based on the behaviour of Mrs F and her unrealistic expectations of the carers.
19. Mr X was unhappy with the care provider’s response and complained to the Ombudsman. He wanted all of the outstanding care fees waived because of the poor service Mr D received during January 2019.

My findings

20. I cannot know exactly how Mrs F behaved towards the carers during the time they cared for Mr D. However, the carers provided written statements to the care provider which disclosed details of how they perceived Mrs F’s behaviour towards them, and why they felt unable to continue caring for Mr D. Mr D and Mrs F signed a contract with the care provider. That contract allowed the care provider to terminate the care package in circumstances which it believes makes the continuation of the service unsustainable. It was for the care provider to make a judgement based on its assessment of the concerns reported by the carers. It decided, based on those concerns, to terminate the contract. That was a decision it was entitled to make. The care provider was not at fault.
21. Mr X has said the care provider did not provide specific details about Mrs F’s behaviour. I have read the statements from the carers and I have read the care providers letter to Mrs Y which informed the family of its decision to terminate Mr D’s care package. In my view the care provider’s letter provided Mrs Y with enough information and details of allegations about Mrs F’s behaviour to support its decision to terminate the contract. The carers allegations were specifically about Mrs F’s behaviour and actions towards them. There were no safeguarding matters raised or any allegations of behaviour which left the carers feeling unsafe. Therefore, the care provider was not at fault.
22. Mr X said he should not have to pay any of the care fees for January. He said the care providers handling of the matter meant it did not adequately fulfil its service throughout January. There is no evidence of inadequate or poor care towards Mr D during January. The carer continued to provide adequate care for Mr D until the package ended. There is no fault in the care provider invoicing Mr X for the services it provided during January 2019.
23. The care provider sent a final invoice to Mrs F in March 2019 and then a further reminder in April 2019. That invoice was £381 more than it should be. That was fault by the care provider. The care provider has accepted the invoice was incorrect and has agreed to issue a new one with the correct amount which is a suitable remedy.
24. Mr X had asked the care provider to forward all invoices to him and not to Mrs F as it caused her distress. Although the care provider did send a further invoice to Mrs F instead of Mr X, I do not consider that oversight to be significant enough to find fault. However, the care provider should send all further communications going forward to Mr X.

Agreed action

25. The care provider agreed within one month of the final decision to reduce the final invoice for Mr D’s care by £381 and issue Mr X with a fresh invoice.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I found some fault with the care provider, and it agreed to my recommendations

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman