Summary: The investigation will be discontinued. The Council adequality investigated Mr X’s complaint about the training given to a carer attending his mother. A suitable remedy has been proposed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his elderly mother, Mrs Y. He says the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council had not adequately trained a carer in recording financial transactions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information submitted by Mr X and discussed the matter with him. I also considered Council’s response to the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs Y lives alone. She has dementia. She began receiving domiciliary care in April 2021. Two days after the care commenced Mrs Y reported financial irregularities and ended the care. Mr Y reported this to care provider and the Council.
5. The care provider investigated the complaint, which included interviewing the carer concerned. The carer disputed any wrongdoing and gave her version of events. The care provider admitted fault, saying the carer had not been adequately trained in recording financial transactions. It said it would amend its procedures to ensure it did not happen again.
6. The Council completed a safeguarding investigation which concurred with the finings of the care provider. The Council apologised.
7. I am satisfied that the Council took appropriate action in response to events complained about. Any further investigation by this office could not add to this.
8. However, the events have led to Mrs Y being without care. She now refuses care because she understandably mistrusts carers, consequently she has unmet eligible care needs. Mr X is Mrs Y’s main carer. Mr X is also a carer for his 26-year-old son, who has learning difficulties and autism.
9. After discussion with Mr X and the Council, the Council has proposed that “…one of our Carer Development Workers contacts [Mr X] and offers to meet with him to discuss the current situation; we will also offer a Carers Assessment. From this, with agreement, we can look to source care from another agency to slowly try and rebuild trust to an extent that they feel able to accept care in the future. If our first contacts are not met favourably then we will ensure we provide the family with information and advice about support services available to carers. We will also provide, in writing, our contact numbers to ensure they know how to contact us in the future”.
10. Mr X is satisfied with the proposed action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Council proposed a suitable remedy prior to formal investigation by this office, it is on this basis, the complaint will be discontinued.
12. The complaint will now be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman