Summary: We stopped investigating Mr X’s complaint about his mother Mrs Y’s home care because there is no injustice to Mrs Y.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained for his mother Mrs Y about Handle with Care, a care agency (the Agency) commissioned by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) to provide home care for Mrs Y. He said:
1. The care worker did not attend the night-time call to give Mrs Y her medication
2. The Agency’s response about what care workers did after Mrs Y fell was inaccurate
3. Care records were removed from the home
4. Care workers did not remove Mrs Y’s teeth.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but we use public money carefully. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the Council’s response to the complaint and records of a call between Mr X and the complaints manager.
4. Mr X 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

5. Mr X spoke to the Council’s complaints manager about his complaint. I have summarised the complaints manager’s note of what was discussed during the call:
• A care worker attended the tea-time call. Mr X’s brother was present and asked about call times and requested the night-time call to be at 11pm. The brother said his understanding was a care worker should have returned later that evening to give Mrs Y her medication. The Agency’s duty manager said Mrs Y would be the last call on the rota, but it would not be as late at 11 pm. The Agency said that a care worker did attend later that evening but they could not unlock the door. Mr X said there was a key safe.
• On another day, care worker 1 entered the property and noted Mrs Y was on the floor. Mr X’s brother said he had contacted Mr X and was waiting for him to arrive. Care worker 1 asked the brother to call an ambulance. Mr X said care worker 2 arrived and tried to lift Mrs Y, saying she was a nurse. Mr X said he (and not either of the care staff) asked for an ambulance to be called. Staff said there was verbal abuse and Mr X’s brother asked them to leave. Mr X denied any verbal abuse and said the second care worker took the care records from the property.
6. The Council’s response to the complaint said it had asked the Agency to investigate the complaint. The response went on to say:
• Complaint a: the Agency said the care worker could not get into the property for the evening call as the door was locked from the inside. The Agency’s duty manager spoke to a family member who said they were staying overnight with Mrs Y who had gone to bed.
• Complaint b: the Agency said Mr X’s brother was already at the property when the first care worker arrived. The first care worker asked the brother why an ambulance had not been called and the brother said he had called Mr X. The first care worker asked for an ambulance to be called and was subject to verbal abuse and so left and spoke to their senior. A second care worker then attended and said an ambulance needed to be called. Both care staff said they were asked to leave the property. The senior then contacted the Council to report the incident. The Agency denied staff tried to move Mrs Y as this would be against company policy.
• Complaint c: Care workers removed care records as Mr X and his brother said they did not want the service to continue
• Complaint d: It could not be established whether the night-time care worker had removed Mrs Y’s teeth and when asked, they could not recall if Mrs Y had let her remove the dentures.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We are a public body and have to use public funds carefully. We do not generally investigate complaints where there is no or little injustice to the person who the complaint is about. I have stopped investigating this complaint because:
• There was no injustice to Mrs Y for complaints (a) and (b). There is a dispute about whether or not the night-time care worker could get into the property to give Mrs Y her medicine, however there was another family member staying with her and it is reasonable to expect they would have given Mrs Y her medication. There is also a dispute about whether or not the second care worker tried to lift Mrs Y. But, there is no dispute that an ambulance was called and no suggestion that Mrs Y was injured by the care worker’s alleged, disputed action in trying to lift Mrs Y.
• There was no fault in removing care records from the property as these belonged to the Agency. It is standard practice for a care agency to take records when a service ends.
• There is no way of establishing what happened about the dentures and when asked, the member of staff concerned could not remember. So further investigation by this office is unlikely to add anything and there is no evidence Mrs Y suffered harm.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman