Summary: Mr B says a company providing adult social care support to his daughters on behalf of the Council, provided a poor service. Mr B says the Care Provider caused injury to one of his daughters and damage to his property. It has been very upsetting for Mr B and his wife. The Council has started a safeguarding investigation. To allow the Council the opportunity to complete this, and fully consider all issues and take any necessary action, we have discontinued investigation. If Mr B is not happy with the result of the Council’s investigation, he can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council provided a poor service:

• A staff member travelled to Scotland and other parts of the UK during the national lockdown, putting Mr B’s household at risk. This caused the family much worry as they were shielding. When Mr B raised his concern, he did not feel it was taken seriously. The Care Provider would not give him the details of the agency the staff member was from and did not say whether it would pursue the issue further. Mr B says in December a care worker was planning to take his daughters (Ms C and Ms D) out to a garden centre, which was not essential travel and would have put them at unnecessary risk.
• Staff took Ms C and Ms D out for a day trip but did not check in advance whether there were accessible changing rooms. This meant Ms C and Ms D were left for 4-5 hours in soiled clothes, which worsened skin breakdowns and was distressing for Mr and Mrs B.
• Staff did not regularly check Ms C and Ms D’s diabetes readings, as would get distracted by activities instead. Mr B says this is a risk because routine checks help you know when blood sugars might be getting too low or too high.
• A staff member drove the car into Mr B’s garage damaging the garage door, and in another incident the staff member scraped the side of Mr B’s car. The staff member did not raise the issues, Mr B brought it up and the staff member said they did not realise they had done it. Mr B tried to raise with the Care Provider but got no response so had to claim on his insurance. This means he has higher insurance premiums, and he had to pay for a hire car which cost around £1000.
• Mr B was the only one who wrote in the communication book, staff did not seem to use it.
• Ms C dislocated her thumb. Care staff did not realise until many hours later and did not tell Mr and Mrs B, even though some records say they were informed. Mr B doubts the dislocation occurred when Ms C slipped in the morning as she would have been in pain all day and thinks there must have been another incident that has not been disclosed.

2. Mr B says there was no involvement or oversight by Care Provider management or by the Council. Mr B says no checks were ever made on the care package, and he was never invited to any reviews or received any review paperwork. Mr B says the service was so bad that he cancelled it, and he and Mrs B are managing without any support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council, including in telephone conversations with both parties.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council is responsible for providing care support to Ms C and Ms D. The Council employed the Care Provider to provide that care support. The Council should review the care support at least each year.
7. Mr B complained to the Care Provider about the standard of care and received a response. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman; we took the view he had exhausted the complaints process as we do not expect people to have to go through two processes, the Care Provider and the Council’s. The Care Provider did not tell Mr B any further steps to escalate his complaint. Where councils outsource work to third parties, the council should have clear agreements about how complaints will be handled, and when the company acting for it should escalate concerns to it.
8. When we contacted the Council, it was unaware of this complaint and the issues involved. It turns out the Care Provider had told the Council of the complaint at the relevant time, but the Council’s officer failed to tell the Customer Service team. The Council acknowledges this oversight and will take appropriate action to prevent recurrence.
9. The Council has started a safeguarding investigation into the staff member breaking lockdown rules, the day trip with nowhere suitable to change Ms C and Ms D’s soiled clothes, and Ms C’s dislocated thumb.
10. Safeguarding means protecting an adult’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. Although there is no current risk to Ms C and Ms D as they are no longer supported by the Care Provider, it is reassuring the Council has begun a safeguarding investigation and shows it is taking the concerns seriously.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have discontinued investigation to allow the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues and take any necessary action.
12. The Council has agreed to investigate all issues, not only those covered by the safeguarding. Mr B has said this is his preferred way forward as would prefer to keep all issues together and have a co-ordinated response. The Council’s complaint handling will also be covered in the response.
13. If Mr B is not satisfied with the Council’s final response to his complaint, he can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman