Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her mother’s domiciliary carers because there is nothing further an Ombudsman investigation would be likely to add to the response already provided by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs X, complains about the actions of her mother’s (Mrs Y’s) domiciliary carers from the Council’s reablement team. Mrs X complains a carer ignored a note she left telling them not to provide Mrs Y with a hot evening meal because she had already eaten; a carer prompted Mrs Y to get ready for bed, when this is not in her care plan; and a carer recorded that Mrs Y had chocolates in her cupboard and questioned whether the family knew she was diabetic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided in her complaint. I also considered the complaint correspondence which I requested from the Council. I sent Mrs X a draft copy of my decision and considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the actions of carers provided by the Council’s reablement service.
6. Mrs X raised three complaints about the carers:

• a carer made Mrs Y a hot meal one evening despite Mrs X leaving a note to say she would not need one because she had already eaten;
• a carer prompted Mrs Y to get ready for bed despite this not being in her care plan; and
• a carer made a record of the fact Mrs Y had chocolates in the cupboard and questioned whether the family knew she was diabetic.

7. The Council explained Mrs Y always chose her own meal and would often start to prepare this before carers arrived. It said it would take note of requests from family members but carers would respect Mrs Y’s choice over what she wanted to eat.
8. The Council acknowledged that assistance with helping Mrs Y into her nightwear was not part of her care plan and apologised if she felt pressurised by the carer prompting her.
9. The Council apologised for any upset caused by the carer’s note about Mrs Y’s chocolate. It said the service had previously received complaints from the family about Mrs Y not being given an appropriate diet for her diabetes so staff were completing food and drink charts to monitor her diet. For this reason, it recorded the fact Mrs Y has several packets of chocolate in her cupboard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation. The Council has acknowledged and apologised where it has been at fault and this offers a reasonable response and remedy to the issues raised in this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman