Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of her father’s, Mr C’s care provider. This is because the care provider has apologised for the fault, amended its policies to ensure charging is clear and agreed to waiver Mr C’s outstanding invoice. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mr C.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains her father’s, Mr C’s care provider did not provide the full 30 minutes of care he was paying for, did not provide care at the time it agreed and failed to consider her complaint resulting in her having to change Mr C’s care provider. Mrs B says she wants compensating for the distress caused by the care provider.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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 action 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 care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation provided by Mrs B and the care provider. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision for comment and discussed her concerns with her.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B asked the Ombudsman to consider her concerns when Mr C’s care provider failed to respond to her complaints. The Ombudsman asked the care provider to investigate. The care provider provided Mrs B with a response in October 2020.
5. The care provider said although the review officer and coordinator took Mrs B’s concerns about the timings of the evening visit and carers not staying the full length of time seriously, and attempted to resolve the issues, they should have brought them to the attention of the Manager. By the time it was brought to the attention of the Manager Mrs B had decided to change care providers. It said it should have supported Mrs B to make alternative arrangements when it knew it could not deliver the care at the time requested. It also explained it should have been made clearer to Mrs B when care was first arranged in 2017 that there was a minimum charge of 30 minutes care, so even if care is completed sooner it will still charge for 30 minutes. The care provider apologised to Mrs B and explained the processes it had put in place and lessons learned from her complaint. It said in future:

• the Manager will complete weekly review sessions with the review officer and coordinator to identify any informal concerns raised;
• staff will assign any concerns or issues raised to the Manager on the computer system, enabling her to intervene if necessary;
• it has reviewed private service contracts and amended them to make clear it operates a minimum visit charge equivalent to 30 minutes and this charge will apply even if the carer leaves early as long as care and support has been satisfactorily completed. It explained it has also amended the contract to explain that arrival times may be subject to re-negotiation should operational changes occur.

6. In addition the care provider said it will waiver Mr C’s outstanding invoice of £272.10 in recognition of the time and trouble Mrs B has been put to given her concerns were not dealt with as effectively as they should have been.
7. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology, financial payment and changes to procedures remedies the injustice caused by the care provider’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the care provider has apologised for the fault, amended its policies to ensure charging is clear and agreed to waiver Mr C’s outstanding invoice. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman