Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the provider of care to her mother agreed to investigate her complaint about a care worker but it failed to do so. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the care provider’s investigation or achieve significantly more for Miss B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained that the provider of care to her mother agreed to investigate her complaint about a care worker but it failed to do so. Miss B told us she is anxious that other service users may be affected by the care worker’s manner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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 is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Miss B and the Council have provided. I have given Miss B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The care service for Miss B’s mother is commissioned by the Council and provided by a private company.
6. Miss B told us she spoke several times to the care provider complaining about a care worker filling in history logs for the daily calls in advance and her time on the rota. She said the care company ignored her complaints so she contacted the Council. Miss B said on one day in August 2020 she recorded all four care visits. On the following day Miss B found out the care worker had complained about her behaviour. Miss B told us what the care worker had said about her was not correct. Miss B then met with the care provider taking copies of the daily logs.
7. Miss B has also contacted the Care Quality Commission, the independent regulator. The Care Quality Commission has powers to take action if it finds a service provider’s care is poor.
8. In October 2020 the care provider emailed Miss B about her complaint. It said it had investigated her complaint about the care logs. It said it had not been able to substantiate the time of the calls. The care provider arranged a supervision meeting with the care worker. It told Miss B it had considered her complaint when reaching its decision to introduce call monitoring at its local office. The care provider offered an apology to Miss B for any distress or upset caused. But it said the care worker would continue as an employee. The care provider said it had not taken anyone’s side but had concluded there had been a clash of personalities between the care worker and Miss B.
9. Miss B complained that the care provider failed to investigate her complaint and stood by what the care worker had said. But in this case the care provider took the steps we would expect it to have taken. It stopped the care worker involved from attending calls to Miss B’s mother while it looked into Miss B’s complaint. The care provider discussed with the care worker what had happened. The care provider also took account of statements made by other members of staff.
10. Miss B told us she is happy that a different company is now providing the care service to her mother.
11. We must consider whether starting an investigation in this case is justified. The Council, which is the commissioning body, and the Care Quality Commission are aware of Miss B’s concerns. The care provider has offered an apology to Miss B and decided to implement call monitoring to avoid similar situations arising in other cases. It is unlikely we would add anything significant to the care provider’s investigation or achieve significantly more for Miss B by investigating her complaint. Miss B’s mother is not at risk because she is receiving care from a provider Miss B is happy with. For these reasons there is insufficient justification for us to investigate Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the care provider’s investigation or achieve significantly more for Miss B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman