Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the actions of her care provider. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation would be able to provide Ms A with a different response to that she has already received, and he cannot provide Ms A with the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Ms A says she wants the care provider to stop one of her carers from providing her care because she has no communication with her and feels uncomfortable with her in her home.

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,

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms A’s representative provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms A told her care provider she wanted to ban one of her carers, Ms C, from entering her property because she felt uncomfortable with her and said she did not communicate with her.
5. Ms A’s care provider investigated her concerns. It explained Ms A has two carers each visit and spoke to Ms C and others who provided care to Ms A. It explained it had not received any other concerns about Ms C’s conduct or care and contrary to what Ms A says, Ms C and others said Ms A refused to communicate with Ms C. Ms C said she did not speak because she felt uncomfortable at being ignored by Ms A. Other carers corroborated Ms C’s account that Ms A refused to speak to her.
6. The care provider says it does not have enough evidence to remove Ms C from her duties and explained to Ms A although she was entitled to deny Ms C access to her property, it could not guarantee it would be able to find a replacement to suit the same times of calls or that an alternative carer would be female. It invited Ms A to let them know how she wanted them to proceed.
7. The care provider explained it has reminded Ms C of the importance of building positive relationships with all clients, including Ms A, and she has agreed to do this.
8. It is unlikely any further investigation would be able to make a different finding to that already provided to Ms A. The Ombudsman cannot say what occurred in situations he was not present or make a finding of the kind Ms A wants. In addition he cannot tell a care company to remove someone from their role. As explained Ms A can refuse to allow the carer into her home, however, this may result in her receiving a different provision. Ms A can advise the care provider if she wishes to pursue this option.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation would be able to provide Ms A with a different response to that she has already received, and he cannot provide Ms A with the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman