Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council tendered the contract and changed his uncle’s, Mr C’s, care provision. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already provided by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to consult his uncle’s, Mr C’s, family when it decided to tender the contract for his care provision. Mr B says:

• the Council did not tell family members about the proposed changes to Mr C’s care provider;
• Mr C’s care provider knew him well, knew what he liked and had a close relationship with him;
• it would be difficult for Mr C to adapt to the changes and he needs stability;
• the Council should allow him direct payments to purchase Mr C’s one to one care directly.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B’s representative provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision, considered his response and discussed his comments on it with him.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B is unhappy with the way the Council consulted about changes to Mr C’s care provider.
5. The Council acknowledged its communication regarding the commissioning process for a change of Mr C’s supportive living care providers was poor and apologised it did not consult with family members. It recommended changes to the process when engaging with clients, families and carers. The Council says it will:

• Identify a method to ensure that all clients and their Next of Kin details are up to date and correct on the system;
• Identify a robust audit trail of communication delivered to clients, families and their carers;

6. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology and review of procedures remedies the injustice caused to Mr C’s family from not having the opportunity to comment on the consultation process. He could not say the outcome would have differed even if Mr C’s family members had of been consulted and could not add to the Council’s response.
7. Mr B says he should be given direct payments so he can purchase Mr C’s one to one care from his previous provider.
8. The Council says it will not provide Mr C with direct payments so he can purchase one to one care from his previous care provider because he needs continuity of care from his regular carers. The Council says its failure to consult did not have a detrimental impact on Mr C who is supported by carers who know him well. It says Mr C has on-going reviews and support. It said four of Mr C’s previous care providers transferred to the new provider and are Mr C’s regular carers. It acknowledged it could not always guarantee the same staff will provide his care but has asked, where possible this is to be the case.
9. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council to ensure Mr C is provided support from the same care providers. The Council has explained why it would not be appropriate to employ Mr C’s previous carers separately and has taken reasonable steps to ensure Mr C receives continuity of care. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault.
10. Mr B says Mr C does not always get his allocated one to one care and is concerned the Council has not provided him with answers to all his questions. The Council has confirmed Mr C is provided with one to one care by his current care providers and I have not seen any evidence to support Mr B’s view that Mr C is not receiving the care he has been assessed as needing.
11. Mr B says the new provider agreed to manage Mr C’s finances then hived this off to another organisation, which he believes impacts on the costs incurred by Mr C and the Trust. If Mr B is concerned the Council is abusing Mr C’s finances he can ask the Court of Protection to consider his concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because any further investigation is unlikely to provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman