Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about domiciliary care provided to her mother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response Mrs X has already received.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about domiciliary care provided to her mother (Mrs Y). Mrs X says carers were changed, arrived late, failed to complete their tasks, and broke a vacuum.

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 Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X complained to the care provider about the service it provided to her mother earlier this year. Mrs X’s complaint included the following:
• Mrs Y’s carer had been changed leading to inadequate care.
• A carer had failed to prepare a meal for Mrs Y and had arrived late.
• Mrs Y’s vacuum cleaner had been broken.
5. In its response to her complaint, the care provider apologised for not telling Mrs X that Mrs Y’s carer would be taking annual leave. It said an experienced member of staff had replaced the original carer. The care provider apologised for not making Mrs Y a sandwich on one occasion. It said a carer had arrived late due to traffic, but they had stayed for the one hour scheduled. Carers had been spoken to and they said the vacuum was working but its handle was damaged – something Mrs Y disputes. The care provider apologised for “any upset or inconvenience that may have been caused”.
6. The Ombudsman does not investigate all the complaints we receive. We need to consider the level of alleged fault and how much injustice it has supposedly caused. We only investigate the most serious complaints. We also need to consider what an investigation could achieve.
7. I understand Mrs X is frustrated by the care her mother received. But the care provider has apologised for the issues it has identified. On balance, I do not think the fault and injustice are significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Mrs X disputes the claim her mother’s vacuum was already damaged, but this is not something we could ever establish. It is therefore difficult to see what more we could add to the care provider’s response and so an investigation is not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mrs X has already received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman