Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property he says was caused by the care provider’s employee. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s wife receives domiciliary care from the care provider. Mr X says a carer left a tap running which caused damage to their property. Mr X wants the care provider to pay for the damage, but it has refused. The care provider is pursuing Mr X for outstanding care charges.

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
• 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)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. At the heart of Mr X’s complaint is a claim for damages from the care provider due to its employee’s negligence. But the role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in cases involving damage to property. Such matters are for insurers, and ultimately, the courts. If the care provider denies responsibility for the damage to Mr X’s property, then it is unlikely we would criticise it for pursuing any outstanding care fees. There is no established link between the two matters.
6. If the care provider rejects Mr X’s claim for damages, he has the option of taking the matter to court. I consider it would be reasonable for him to do so. This is because only the Court can decide if the care provider has been negligent, and is liable for the damage to Mr X’s property. The Court can decide what damages, if any, the care provider should pay. The Ombudsman has no powers to make such decisions, and so an investigation is not appropriate. We could never give Mr X the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman