Summary: The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate this complaint about the provision of care to the complainant’s father. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr C, says that:
• The Care Agency providing care for his father provided poor care and a care supervisor from the Agency behaved unacceptably;
• The Council did not investigate his complaint, but incorrectly referred it to the Care Agency; and
• The Council did not carry out a safeguarding investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 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

5. I considered the information provided by Mr C, and I have sent him a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C’s father, F, received care from a care agency. In August 2018 Mr C complained to the Council about poor quality care and about a care supervisor who, he says, behaved inappropriately.
7. Mr C says that the Council did not investigate his complaints properly and did not provide a response. He says that he emailed the Council again in January 2019 but did not receive a response from the Council until February 2020.
8. In the response, the Council says that it contacted the Care Agency in August 2018 following concerns reported by Mr C. It says that the main issue raised was about missed care by the Care Agency between 17-19 August 2018. Matters were not resolved with the Agency, but the Council says it took no further action as F was not at risk since he had stopped using the Agency.
9. The Council’s response goes on to say that it notified Mr C and F of the action it had taken, and apologises for the lack of a more formal response which it had not felt was necessary.
10. It also apologises for the lack of response to the email of January 2019.
11. Mr C has now brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, but we will not investigate it. This is because the substantive matter relates to events that he knew about more than 12 months ago and is therefore out of our jurisdiction. I have considered whether I should exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to set aside the time bar, but I have seen no good reasons for us to investigate the matter now, as Mr C’s father has not used the Agency for some time and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome now.
12. Mr C also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint, but we do not investigate complaint handling where we are not looking at the substantive matter, as they are too closely intertwined. Additionally, it seems that the Council treated the matter as a potential safeguarding matter rather than a complaint, and felt that the matter had been resolved. It apologised for the lack of a more formal response, and investigation could not add anything further to this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. Subject to any comments Mr C might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman