Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for expenses that the complainant says were caused by the actions of the Care Provider supporting his wife at their home. This is because the complainant has a remedy in court and it is reasonable to expect him to use it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr G, says that a Care Provider previously supporting his wife at their home:
• Did not handle her safely, necessitating the installation by Mr G of CCTV to monitor the carers’ actions;
• Damaged flooring, which cost £600 to repair: and
• Has refused to accept liability for the costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr G and by the Care Provider. I have also sent Mr G a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr G’s wife received support from a Care Provider. Mr G says that the carers providing the support were careless and nearly dropped her on more than one occasion. He says he therefore felt it was necessary to install CCTV so that he could monitor the actions of the carers. This cost him a considerable sum.
6. Mr G further says that the carers mishandled a piece of heavy lifting equipment, causing damage to the floor in his home. He says that this cost £600 to repair.
7. Mr G complained to the Care Provider about these costs, and asked it to compensate him for them.
8. The Care Provider refused, saying that it was not liable for the costs. It said that it was not its decision or recommendation that the CCTV was installed, and that its installation had provided no evidence of any wrongdoing by its staff.
9. The Care Provider further denied that its staff had damaged the flooring. It pointed out the two other providers had also been supporting Mr G’s wife. Additionally it said that Mr G may have damaged the flooring himself when he used the equipment single handed during lockdown. It therefore says there is no evidence that the damage is due to its staff’s actions.
10. Mr G does not accept the Care Provider’s denial of liability and has complained to the LGSCO. However, liability is a legal construct which is more suitable for the courts to consider rather than a complaints procedure. Mr G can pursue the matter in court, and it is reasonable for him to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complainant can take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman