Summary: Mr X complained the Council had ended his carer’s support without considering the impact on his health and going against his Care Plan. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ended his carer’s support without considering the impact on his health and going against his Care Plan.

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
• 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X gave to the Ombudsman in his complaint. I have also considered information from the Council.
4. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained about the removal of his carer support, Y. He wanted the Council to reinstate Y and reconsider his support package.
6. Mr X complained the Care Agency should have monitored Y more effectively.
7. Mr X complained the ‘enabler’ put in place was not meeting his needs.
8. The Council explained the Care Agency, who employed Y, decided to remove them from Mr X’s support package. It said it did not employ Y.
9. The Council said it agreed with the decision, based on the evidence it had seen. It said as the organisation commissioning services it had to ensure those services safeguarded adults who may be at risk of abuse.
10. The Council said the change of carers had been distressing for Mr X but, on balance, it felt the recommendation to remove Y was proportionate.
11. The Council said it had contacted the Care Agency to see if it would consider letting Mr X know if it would reinstate Y. The Council said the Care Agency had not yet responded.
12. The Council said it had recently reviewed Mr X’s care package. It said a newly assigned Social Worker would work with Mr X to further review his support plan.
13. The Council agreed the Care Agency needed to consider Y’s actions. It said it would now do so as the Council had closed Mr X’s complaint.
14. The Council said it would expect the Care Agency to explain how it monitored the support provided by the carer, and if it had followed its policy and procedures. The Council explained it wanted to prevent similar cases in the future, especially as Mr X’s support plan stipulated male carers only.

Analysis

15. From the evidence I have seen the Council has dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the removal of Y properly. It was not the Council’s decision to remove Y, and it is not the Council’s decision whether to reinstate them. The Ombudsman cannot hold the Council responsible for this, even though it agreed with the Care Agency’s actions. The Ombudsman would have questioned the Council’s actions if it had not taken a suitable response to a potential safeguarding matter.
16. If Mr X wants to challenge the Care Agency’s decision about Y he should complain directly to it.
17. The Council has responded to Mr X’s request for a review of his care package. It has assigned a Social Worker to consider his care package further.
18. The Council has said it will look at the Care Agency’s monitoring of Y to ensure it followed policies and procedures. This is what the Ombudsman would have recommended from an investigation.
19. We cannot add to the Council’s investigation and it is unlikely an investigation by us would have a different result.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault or add anything to the Council's own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman