Summary: The Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to deliver calls on time which caused Mr and Mrs D anxiety and frustration. The Ombudsman cannot establish what happened during an alleged assault and the cause of broken taps. This is because there is no independent account of what happened and further investigation would not resolve the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr & Mrs D and carry out an audit of the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I refer to as Mr D complains about home support services provided to his wife, whom I refer to as Mrs D.
2. The Council commissioned services from, “Caring Hands”, the “Care Provider”. Mr D complains the Care Provider:-
• did not provide calls to Mrs D on time;
• caused damage to his property; and,
• on one occasion a carer was abusive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 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)

5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

6. If we are satisfied with a council’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

7. I read the complaint and the information Mr D provided. I spoke with Mr D and went through his complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I looked at:-
• daily care records;
• witness statements;
• contract compliance information.
8. Mr and Mrs D, the Council and Care Provider, have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision and I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mrs D is supported in the community by home carers who assist her four times a day. This includes help with personal care. Mrs D is also supported by Mr D. Mr D has health problems which can impact on the way services are delivered to Mrs D. Service delivery can therefore be complex and challenging.

Damage to property

10. Mr D complains carers broke the kitchen taps. The Care Provider says the taps did not work properly because of worn washers, a result of normal wear and tear; not the fault of the carers.
11. Mr D complains carers failed to fold a wheelchair which resulted in scratches to his fridge door. The Care Provider says the fridge is close to a doorway and manoeuvring the wheelchair was difficult because of the general clutter. The Care Provider spoke with Mr D at the time who agreed to remove some of the clutter. It told carers to fold the empty wheelchair when moving it. For further protection Mr D also put some cardboard around the fridge.

Was there fault causing injustice?

12. I do not intend to investigate the issue of the broken taps further as no amount of investigation would prove who or what caused the broken taps. The Care Provider visited the property, assessed the damage, and concluded it was not responsible. In these circumstances I cannot say that it did not act properly.
13. The Care Provider has accepted that carers cosmetically damaged the fridge. After meeting with Mr D both parties took measures to prevent this from reoccurring. Had the Care Provider had a conversation with Mr D earlier the initial scratches may have been avoided. Mr and Mrs D have the injustice of their fridge being cosmetically damaged.

Late calls

What should have happened

14. The Council commissioned care call times for Mrs D at:-
• 10-11am
• 1-2pm
• 5.30-6.30pm
• 9-10pm/9-9.30pm
15. On 21 December 2018 the Council and Care Provider met with Mr and Mrs D. When addressing the late calls the Care Provider said calls should be made within an hour window to the agreed time; with a 15 minute leeway on either side of the slot.
16. The Council says there is nothing specific within its contract about the timing of calls. However it would take monitoring action where there were consistently late calls. In this case it took no action.

What happened

17. Mrs D’s call was the last call of the day. The Care Provider says carers were sometimes held up by earlier calls. It says at these times it tried to contact Mr and Mrs D but their calls went unanswered. Mr D says that sometimes Mrs D accidentally blocked numbers.
18. The Care Provider says it offered Mrs D an earlier time slot which she refused.
19. I have reviewed the care records for a period between 8 September and 10 October 2019. During the 32 day period carers were late 21 times. Most of the late calls were in the evening, some ended after 11pm.
20. In response to a draft of this decision the Care Provider says Mr and Mrs D were aware of the time window and had said the perfect call time would be 10pm/10.15pm. It also says the period examined as part of the investigation was after it had given notice to the Council to say it could no longer provide care to Mrs D. At this point the Care Provider was restricted on the carers it could send to Mrs D due to a combination of carers refusing to go to Mrs D’s property, and those Mr and Mrs D were willing to accept.

Was there fault causing injustice?

21. Neither Mr D or Mrs D have complained about the general care provided by the Care Provider and it appears that this was of a good standard.
22. However, I consider the frequency of the late calls amounts to service failure. Even if the Care Provider could evidence that it contacted Mr and Mrs D when carers were running late, it does not excuse the frequency of the late calls. The Care Provider says it offered Mrs D a different time slot, but I have found no evidence of this.
23. The Care Provider relies on Mr D saying his perfect time slot was 10pm/10.15pm. In saying this I do not consider Mr D was agreeing to a potential time slot within the window period of 11.15/11.30 but merely stating that if he had his choice carers would attend between 10pm and 10.15pm.
24. Although it is recognised that providing care to Mrs D can be challenging, the Council still had a duty to provide care within the agreed time until it either changed the time, or formally told Mrs D that it could not provide the service at the specified time.
25. I accept there were increased difficulties towards the end of the care package provided to Mrs D with the availability of carers, however the late calls were an ongoing issue referred to by Mrs D in previous reviews.
26. The late calls caused Mr and Mrs D distress and inconvenience. Mr D was caused anxiety by the delays in service provision, and Mrs D could not have her personal care needs met until the carers arrived.

Alleged assault

27. There are two different accounts about an alleged assault to a carer. A carer alleges that Mr D shoulder barged her when she walked past him to lock an external door. Mr D disputes this and says it was the carer who was acting aggressively and refusing to carry out his instructions. There was another carer present in the property during the incident, but she did not witness the alleged assault.
28. Where there are two different accounts of an incident, without an independent witness, it is difficult to make a finding of fault. This is because I am unable to prefer one account over another. Further investigation would not result in a finding of fault, so I do not intend to investigate this element of the complaint further.

Agreed action

29. I consider there has been fault by the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council. The Council has agreed to carry out the following actions to remedy the complaint:-
1. to apologise to Mr and Mrs D for the faults I have identified in this statement in particular the, late calls and the scratches to their fridge;
2. to review the care records to identify the extent of the late calls;
3. if Mrs D has paid for these calls to refund her 50% of the charges made;
4. to make a payment of £250 each to Mr and Mrs D for the anxiety and distress caused by the late calls;
5. to audit the Care Provider to check whether the late calls are an isolated incident in this complaint or more widespread and take appropriate action;
6. to review the contract regarding timing of calls so there is transparency for people using the service.
30. The Council should complete (a) within a month of the final decision, (b)-(d) within two months of the final decision and (e)-(f) within three months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I consider there was fault in the actions of the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council, which caused Mr and Mrs D injustice. I have now completed my investigation and closed the complaint on the basis of the agreed action.
32. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman