Midshires Care Limited (20 009 287)

Category : Adult care services > Domiciliary care

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 27 Aug 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains that a care provider made an unannounced visit to his mother in her home. The complaint was closed because the actions Mr X complained about have not caused his mother an injustice to warrant further pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X’s sister is his mother’s deputy for property and affairs. Together they commissioned a care service for their mother from Helping Hands, a Midshires Care Limited care provider.
  2. In December 2020, the care provider’s care co-ordinator visited Mr X’s mother, unannounced, and carried out a care review.
  3. Mr X and his sister were upset when they found out about the visit. Mr X asked why the company why the care co-ordinator made the visit without consulting either him or his sister beforehand. Mr X said they provided the company with a copy of the Court of Protection Order setting out his sister’s deputyship. Mr X said the company did not contact his mother’s sheltered scheme management beforehand to check if it was safe to visit under covid19 rules. Mr X made a complaint about these and other matters to the company.
  4. The company’s complaint response indicated the Order was not for welfare matters. It said it had no instructions on file stipulating assessment visits must be conducted only in the presence of a family member. It said it had no instructions on file requiring it to telephone the sheltered housing scheme to request permission to visit.
  5. The company said it was possible it had not recorded receipt of a copy of an enduring power of attorney concerning Mr X’s mother’s welfare; and it had failed to write in the notes that the family wished to be present for any care review. It apologised to Mr X for these errors. It noted the care co-ordinator had arranged a new care review of Mr X’s mother with Mr X’s expected attendance at the visit this time.
  6. The company’s response angered Mr X and his sister. They considered the company did not understand the meaning of a Court of Protection Deputyship. They said they had previously had to explain to the company that it must not deal with their mother unless one of them is present. They said the company had caused them problems previously when it denied knowledge of the Court Order despite being given copies of the Order. Mr X and his sister insisted the company explain its present and past actions.
  7. The company’s responses did not change in substance.
  8. Mr X says the company’s actions have caused them distress, anger and frustration because:
    • the company did not follow its previous procedure and did not explain why;
    • the company put his mother at risk by entering the sheltered housing scheme under covid19 restrictions without checking it was ok to do so;
    • the company has not provided a copy of covid19 health and safety procedures for its staff when visiting clients;
    • the company lost two documents from the Court of Protection which contain sensitive information about their mother;
    • the company was patronising and dismissive towards them and the head of the company showed incompetence by not understanding the difference between power of attorney and a Court of Protection Order.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

  1. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Care Provider and invited their comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

  1. It is clear in this case the care provider’s complaint responses upset Mr X and his sister. The issue of whether the care provider understood the meaning of the Deputyship lies at the root of their anger and frustration.
  2. It may be that the Care Provider misunderstood the meaning of the Court Order in that the term ‘affairs’ denotes responsibility for welfare. On the other hand, it may be that as welfare is not specifically mentioned in the Order, Mr X’s sister does not have a deputyship that covers that area.
  3. It is not for the Ombudsman to adjudicate over the meaning of Mr X’s sister’s deputyship. Any or both parties can seek clarity from the Court of Protection.
  4. The care co-ordinator did visit their mother without informing Mr X or his sister beforehand. Given the complaint, the care provider recognised that Mr X and his sister wanted a family member present during any care reviews. That is why it then arranged a new care review at which Mr X was present.
  5. I do not find the first unannounced visit caused difficulties for Mr X’s mother or led her to suffer an injustice that now warrants investigation by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.
  6. I accept Mr X and his sister are upset by the company’s responses to their communications but I do not consider those matters caused their mother an injustice.
  7. If the care provider breached data protection rules then Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner who can assess the data breach and the implications for the care provider.
  8. As to whether the care provider had covid19 health and safety measures in place when its staff visited Mr X’s mother, the company should now provide Mr X with information on the covid19 protocols it had in place in December 2020.

Back to top

Final Decision

  1. The complaint was closed because Mr X’s mother did not suffer significant injustice in consequence of the matters complained of here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings