Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about a carer damaging her clothes. This is because this is a matter of negligence and this can only be determined by the insurers or the courts.

The complaint

1. Ms Z has complained that the carers organised by the council to support her ruined the designer clothes her mother gave her as they used the wrong wash setting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint provided by Ms Z and the correspondence she exchanged with the Council and the care company organised by the Council. I also considered Ms Z’s comments to the Draft Decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council arranged for a care company to provide care and support for Ms Z.
6. In January 2020 Ms Z complained to the Council that the care staff had washed delicate items on too hot a wash. The items which had been a gift from Ms Z’s mother were ruined and Ms Z asked for compensation and an apology.
7. The Council forwarded Ms Z’s complaint to the care company which it said had its own complaints procedure. It also told Ms Z if she remained dissatisfied with the response from the care company then she could contact the Council again to see if a further response was possible.
8. The care company responded to Ms Z’s complaint by saying the care worker who had carried out the washing said Ms Z had asked for clarification on the best wash to use on certain items. It also said when Ms Z complained to another care worker, they asked to see the damaged clothes, but she refused to show them. Ms Z has denied this and has said she was never asked to produce the damaged clothing.
9. The care company went on to say Ms Z had admitted she often did her own washing and could not show them the damaged clothing.
10. The company concluded by saying it would be difficult to investigate the issue due to them not knowing about it when it was supposed to have occurred in December. The care company also said they would be happy to look into the matter if Ms Z could allow them to see the damaged items.
11. It would be reasonable for Ms Z to go back to the care company with her complaint as it has made it clear they are still open to investigating this further. Therefore, if she is dissatisfied with the response from the care company it would be reasonable for Ms Z to ask the Council or its insurers for a review of the matter since it arranged the care in the first place.
12. If Ms Z is still dissatisfied at this point it would be reasonable for Ms Z to go to court to seek a remedy for the damage to her clothes. The question whether the Council is liable for the damage Ms Z has complained about is a legal matter. Only the courts can decide liability in claims about damage to property caused by negligence, if they are not resolved another way.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because what is at issue is the question of whether the Council is liable for damage to Ms Z’s property. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect Ms Z to seek a remedy by going to court if her complaint remains unresolved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman