Summary: Mr X complained about how the Care Provider treated him after a carer made false allegations about him. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Care Provider’s actions after a carer made false allegations about him. His complaint included that the Care Provider:
• unreasonably decided his visits required two carers;
• unreasonably withdrew services as punishment for him complaining;
• was discriminatory and prejudiced, as it did not seek his version of events and assumed the carers were correct based on his age and his gender; and
• failed to properly investigate his complaint, summarising his complaint inaccurately and failing to address all the issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about adult social care providers and decides whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. We cannot question whether a care provider’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us. This included his email communications with the Care Provider between May 2019 and present, and its complaint response.
6. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision and further evidence he provided.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X received care at home from the Care Provider, which he commissioned privately. In May 2019, the Care Provider decided Mr X needed two carers to support him for a trip outside of his home. It then decided two carers would also be required for visits to his home. This decision was based on allegations about Mr X which he says were untrue and distorted.
8. The Care Provider made its decision without firstly seeking Mr X’s description of events, which he felt was unfair and meant it made assumptions about what had happened. It would have been good practice for the Care Provider to seek Mr X’s input before making a decision. However, on balance, I consider it likely we would fall short of finding fault in the Care Provider’s actions. It was entitled, based on the concerns its carers raised, to decide it needed to take steps to ensure the safety of its staff. Mr X disagrees with the decision, but this does not mean it was made with fault. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and I cannot substitute my decision for that of the Care Provider. After considering Mr X’s explanation of events, the Care Provider remained of the view two staff were required.
9. In his complaints to the Care Provider, Mr X explained in detail how the allegations were distorted and did not reflect what had happened. He said that, had the same actions been displayed, for example, by an older female receiving care, they would have been interpreted differently. He said he was therefore being discriminated against based on his age and gender. He also says a carer told him this was the case. We could not say now what happened and whether some of the allegations were exaggerated as Mr X says.
10. The Care Provider considered Mr X’s explanations, as well as information gathered in interviews with staff involved in events. It did not agree it had discriminated and it did not find evidence to support Mr X’s assertion the carer had distorted or falsified events. The Care Provider properly considered the available evidence in coming to this decision, and because there was no fault in the process it followed, I cannot question its decision.
11. After Mr X complained, the Care Provider decided Mr X’s familiar carer would not provide support to him while the complaint was ongoing. Mr X was unhappy with this decision and he felt it was a decision made to punish him because he had complained. The Care Provider has explained it would have been inappropriate for that carer to provide care to Mr X while his complaint was being considered due to the issues that had been raised, and also because the carer had requested this. It was entitled to make this decision.
12. I cannot see evidence of fault in how the Care Provider investigated Mr X’s complaint. It attempted to agree a complaint summary with Mr X, it took appropriate steps to investigate and I am satisfied it properly considered Mr X’s complaint. It discussed its findings with him after providing a response, and ultimately signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman when it was clear he remained dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Care Provider at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman