Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the domiciliary care his mother, Ms Y, received. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the previous investigations and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the care staff did not follow correct infection prevention control precautions when disposing of bodily waste. He also complains that the care staff used inappropriate language when speaking to his mother and they damaged his mother’s property and belongings. Mr X would like the care provider to pay for damages caused to his mother’s property and belongings. He would also like it to apologise to him and his mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint which included a final response from the Council. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received by Mr X before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X said care staff were disposing of Ms Y’s urine in the sink rather than in the toilet. He said this was unsanitary and unacceptable. The care provider said it investigated this and addressed it during supervision with the care worker in question. The care worker also attended additional infection prevention and control training. The Council said as the care provider had taken appropriate action, no further action was required.
5. Mr X said he witnessed care workers using inappropriate and offensive language to his mother. He said it made his mother feel extremely uncomfortable and it was unacceptable behaviour from the care workers. The Council said this was investigated as part of a safeguarding investigation where Ms Y and the care workers were interviewed. Ms Y and the care workers believed no inappropriate and offensive language was used. In addition, the Council said Ms Y did not want the care provider to change her care workers. The outcome of the investigation concluded there was no evidence of any abuse.
6. Mr X said the care workers broke his mother’s bed by standing on it, while they were assisting her to bed. During a discussion with the Council, Mr X said he did not witness any care workers standing on the bed. The Council said this incident was also investigated as part of a safeguarding investigation. The outcome concluded there was no evidence that the care workers had damaged the bed.
7. Mr X said the care workers damaged the carpet on top of the stairs and in the front room of the house. The Council said at Ms Y’s request, personal care was always delivered to her downstairs therefore the care workers cannot be responsible for the damage to the carpet upstairs. The Council added that the care workers were not aware of any damage to the carpet downstairs. The Council concluded there was no evidence that could confirm how and when the damage was caused.
8. Mr X said the care workers smashed the dishes in the kitchen while they washed them. The Council responded that the package of care delivered to Ms Y included personal care and medication support. It did not include support with preparation of food and nutrition. The Council continued that care workers were interviewed and they stated they did not support Ms Y with any food preparation and were not aware of any damage to the dishes. The Council noted Mr X complained about this issue a month after the care provider stopped delivering care to Ms Y. Due to the timescale of the discovery of damage and the contributing factor of other people living with Ms Y, the Council said there was no evidence this damage was caused by the care workers.

Back to top

Analysis

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
1. The care provider investigated the issue about the care worker who had disposed of urine in the sink and took appropriate action. It is unlikely we could add more to the previous investigation.
2. The care provider investigated Mr X’s claims of care staff using inappropriate and offensive language and concluded there was no evidence of abuse towards Ms Y. It is unlikely we could add more to the previous investigation.
3. The Council investigated Mr X’s claims that the care staff damaged Ms Y’s property and belongings and concluded there was no formal evidence that held the care staff responsible for the damages. It is unlikely we could add more to the Council’s investigation as there is not enough corroborating evidence to support Mr X’s claims. There is little prospect of an investigation reaching a conclusive finding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the previous investigations and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman