Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the invoices the Council sent to her father for his care service. This is because there is not enough evidence for us to reach a safe conclusion.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained on behalf of her father, Mr C, about the invoices the Council sent to him for his care service.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mrs B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B told us Mr C needed care at home after leaving hospital. The Council met the cost of his care for the first six weeks. Mrs B said her father then needed care for a further six weeks. She told us she had no problem with the quality of care he received while the care workers were in his home. But she said the care workers had claimed they spent 45 to 50 minutes in Mr C’s home every day. Mrs B told us the care workers only spent 20 minutes there and the rest of the time they sat in their car. Mrs B told the Council she does not want her father to be taken advantage of and to have to pay for care he did not receive.
7. In its response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Council said it understood her mother raised her concerns a few days after the care service had stopped. The Council said one of its social care officers had then reviewed the care agency’s records. The officer found, on average, the care workers had recorded staying 40 to 45 minutes at Mr B’s home. The Council said it was difficult to prove a shortfall in call times retrospectively. But it said it appeared Mr C had received the care he needed because there had been no reports of uncompleted tasks. As a gesture of goodwill the Council agreed to reduce the invoiced amount by £100.
8. Mrs B wants her father to pay the correct amount for the care he received. The amount of time the care workers spent delivering the service to meet Mr C’s needs is disputed. There is not enough evidence for us to reach a safe conclusion in this case. We could not now find additional evidence to justify calling on the Council to make a further reduction to the invoiced amount.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence for us to reach a safe conclusion.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman