Summary: Mr C complained about his adult social care arranged by the Council. The Care Provider adequately investigated most of the concerns, but damage to Mr C’s driveway was outstanding. The Care Provider has since arranged professional cleaning of the drive, and a payment of £50 to cover damage to carpet. This took some time to resolve and in the interim Mr C went to the cost, time, and effort of attempting to clean it himself. The Council had problems arranging care support when the Care Provider ended its service, this left Mr C without the required support on at least one occasion. The Council should apologise and pay £50 to recognise the costs incurred by Mr C in cleaning the driveway and the impact of the missed care support.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I will call Mr C, says:
2. The Council employed Aspire Care UK to meet his care needs, but the care agency did not provide adequate services in line with what the Council was paying for. Mr C has given the following examples of poor service:

• Carer using a dog grooming van, so Mr C had to sit on dog hairs and squeeze his shopping into the rear dog transporting crate.
• A carer left Mr C’s trolley unattended to go and do their own shopping, this was not solely a bottle of water as claimed by the care agency.
• A carer’s front passenger seat was jammed forward in an uncomfortable position, there was no space in the rear seats so Mr C had an uncomfortable journey cramped in the front. There was also limited space in the boot for Mr C’s shopping.
• A carer drove off with his shopping, and he had to wait quite some time for its return. Mr C was hungry, and his takeaway was cold by the time the carer returned.
• A carer was gambling on his phone during the care call.
• On 3-4 occasions the carers arrived 30-40 minutes early and banged heavily on Mr C’s door. Mr C was in the shower and found this distressing. Despite telling the carers they should telephone first to see if it was ok to come early, they did not do this and continued to turn up unexpectedly.
• A carer parked on Mr C’s drive and their car spilled fuel/oil which has stained the drive.
• The care agency ended the contract after Mr C complained. Mr C does not believe this is because no carers were available (he says when the agency took the contract, they said they had various carers so he could have variety) and was only because he complained. This left him without care for several weeks.

3. Mr C says the Council delayed getting a new care agency to take over. Mr C had to use a taxi service to take him to the shops and had to manage his shopping with great difficulty without the care support. Mr C says once the Council referred to MOSAIC a new agency was quickly found, and he does not understand why the Council did not make that referral sooner.
4. Mr C says he is distressed by the poor service he describes above, and that the care agency is allowed to terminate with little notice because he complained, leaving him with no care support. Mr C says the agency should not be paid for services it did not render. Mr C is upset by the damage to his drive, which the Council has not responded to. Mr C says he has spent approximately £40 on special cleaning fluids but it has not fixed it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended). Aspire Care UK was providing care support to Mr C on behalf of the Council.
6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr C, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information from the Council and Aspire Care UK in response to my enquiries.
9. Mr C 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

10. The Council arranged Aspire Care UK (the Care Provider) to visit Mr C once per week to take him shopping and provide some company.
11. Mr C was unhappy with the service he was receiving, as explained at paragraph two, so he complained to the Care Provider.
12. The Care Provider investigated and responded to the concerns. The Council’s contract with the Care Provider specifies the person using the service can complain to the Care Provider, but also has access to the Council’s complaints process. The Council was satisfied with the response the Care Provider gave Mr C.

Dog grooming van

13. Mr C says the care worker used a dog grooming van; this shocked him and he had to sit on dog hairs and squeeze his shopping into the rear dog transporting crate. The Care Provider spoke with the care worker who said there was only one dog hair on the seat and Mr C did not put his shopping in the crate. The Care Provider says no-one else has complained about this vehicle and the issue has not come up at any care reviews with clients. The care worker apologised and understood her mistake of not cleaning all dog hairs from the vehicle and was reminded to ensure the vehicle is clean in future.

My views

14. The Care Provider adequately investigated the concerns and took appropriate action to remind the care worker to ensure the vehicle is clean.

Trolley

15. Mr C says the care worker left the trolley in the middle of the aisle and went off to do their own shopping. Mr C says it took ten minutes to find the care worker and was embarrassing telling them they had to put back their own shopping as they are there to support him. Mr C says it left an atmosphere. To investigate the Care Provider spoke with Mr C and the care worker. The Care Provider asked Mr C whether he raised with the care worker at the time about where they had left the trolley so they could move it; Mr C had not done this. The Care Provider suggested in future, if he felt able to, Mr C could raise any issue with the care worker at the time so that it could be corrected. The Care Provider also spoke with the care worker about the issue, and to be more mindful in future. The care worker told the Care Provider they had asked Mr C’s permission to get a bottle of water and had gone to get it while Mr C was waiting in the queue. The Care Provider had no issue with care workers purchasing drinks as and when they can during or between care calls, so long as it does not impact on the care provision.
16. Mr C says it was not solely a bottle of water, it was several items of shopping. The Care Provider says the care worker says it was a bottle of water, this was not a claim of the Care Provider. The Care Provider shared with the parties at the time that it would not be acceptable for a care worker to complete their own shopping and if this happened the Care Provider would immediately raise the issue with the care worker.

My views

17. The Care Provider took adequate action to investigate Mr C’s concerns by speaking with the parties involved. There is discrepancy over exactly what happened which neither the Care Provider nor I can establish which is the correct version. The Care Provider acted appropriately by giving advice to both the care worker and Mr C about what is acceptable in these circumstances.

Jammed seat

18. The Care Provider says Mr C did not mention at the time that the seat was jammed forward. Mr C told the Care Provider the car was small and not comfortable for him as he is tall. There also was no space in the boot for his shopping because the boot was full of the care worker’s personal items. The Care Provider explained to Mr C it did not know the care worker had a small car; that care worker was not scheduled for any further calls so the issue would not be repeated. The Care Provider explained that care workers use their own cars, and the Care Provider cannot dictate what they keep in them. The car must be clean and not a hazard. Mr C confirmed there was room in the car for his shopping, so the Care Provider took no further action.

My views

19. The Care Provider took appropriate action to investigate the concerns, and to prevent future problems by not scheduling this care worker to Mr C’s care calls.

Takeaway

20. The Care Provider says the care worker returned with Mr C’s takeaway as soon as possible. The Care Provider says it offered to get Mr C a replacement, but he said it had not been long and it would be ok. Mr C disputes this, he says the takeaway was cold and there was no offer of a replacement.
21. There was onus on both the care worker and Mr C to ensure Mr C had all items before the care worker drove away. Mr C says it was not possible for him to check because he had taken bags inside and when he came out to get the remainder the care worker had driven off.

My views

22. The care worker should have checked Mr C had all his items before driving off, this was fault. Once the error was realised both Mr C and the Care Provider took prompt action and the care worker returned.
23. It would be appropriate for the Care Provider to offer a replacement item. The Care Provider says it did this, Mr C says it did not. I cannot know which version is correct.

Gambling

24. The Care Provider found no evidence of a care worker gambling. The Care Provider says when the care worker was on their phone, they were completing electronic logs which are part of the care visit, and not gambling. Mr C disputes this and says he heard and saw the gambling site. Mr C felt disrespected that the care worker was using the time they should be interacting with Mr C for their personal pleasure.

My views

25. I cannot know which version of events is correct, so cannot make a finding of fault. Mr C confirmed his care needs were met for the rest of the care call, and it was only a brief time the care worker was on the phone so even if there was fault it caused minimal injustice.

Arriving early

26. Mr C says the care worker arrived around 45 minutes early on at least 3 occasions. The Care Provider only has evidence of one care call that was 25 minutes early. The Care Provider says if the care worker will be early or late, they tell the office, and the office tells the client. The Care Provider has not provided evidence it told Mr C this call would be early.

My views

27. I have seen the evidence from the Care Provider which shows one care call as early. There is no evidence the Care Provider informed Mr C this call would be early, which is fault as is not in accordance with its standard process. I can understand it would then come as a shock to Mr C, especially if he was in the shower at the time.

Oil spill

28. Mr C says only care workers park on his drive, and so the oil spill was from the care workers car. Mr C says the care worker accepted this at the time and said they would tell the Care Provider.
29. The Care Provider says there was no evidence of any oil leaking from the care workers car. The Council says it referred the issue to the Care Provider to respond to. Despite having no evidence its worker was at fault, the Care Provider arranged a professional cleaning company to clean the drive. Mr C had some issues with the way these works were completed, and says the worker came in with dirty shoes leaving marks on the carpet. The Care Provider has paid Mr C £50 for him to arrange the cleaning of his carpet.
30. Mr C reported the oil spill in July 2021 but the clean was not completed until May 2022.

My views

31. When responsibility for the damage was in dispute the Care Provider or Council could have referred the matter to their insurers to investigate. They chose not to do so, and I cannot say had they done so the issue would have been resolved any quicker. So, it is likely that decision has not caused any significant injustice to Mr C. However, having not referred to insurers I would expect the Council to have made a quicker decision and resolution, it should not have taken nearly a year to resolve.
32. Mr C says he spent money on specialist cleaning products, though has provided no evidence of that. I consider it more likely than not Mr C went to some cost, time and effort attempting to clean the driveway himself. Especially given the Care Provider has said by the time it came to do the professional clean there was no real evidence of any marks. However, as a homeowner Mr C would be responsible for the upkeep of his drive, so I must consider at some point there was a likelihood he would need to buy cleaning products or pay a professional cleaner. So, I take that into mitigation when considering the injustice.
33. The Care Provider and Council are not directly responsible for the actions of the drive cleaning company but agreed to make a payment to Mr C for carpet cleaning. This is a reasonable action in response to the issues, and a quicker resolution for Mr C than if the Care Provider pursued the drive cleaning company to resolve. Though the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council delayed arranging the clean.

Ending contract

34. The Care Provider ended the service because it said it had no staff available to provide the service to Mr C. The Council accepted the reasons given and started looking for alternative support. The Council did not raise with Mr C and the Care Provider whether there might be availability on a different day or time. The Council says Mr C was unhappy with the service and so it was an opportunity to make a change.
35. The Council says Mr C is very specific about the times his care call can take place. With the backdrop of the pandemic and national staff shortages the Council is aware many care agencies are struggling to meet specific call times and locations.
36. The Care Provider only must give a week notice to end the contract, which it did. The Council managed to arrange support for the first week, but not the following week. Mr C says he had to use a taxi service which did not meet his assessed care and support needs. Mr C says he was without the necessary support for about a month.
37. Mr C says the Council quickly found support once it referred to MOSAIC. The Council explains MOSAIC is a support service for those using direct payments to pay for their care. When looking for care support the Council will first call on those on the Council’s commissioned providers list, which is what it did. Only when that list was exhausted would the Council seek support from other sources.

My views

38. Complaints should be taken as an opportunity to improve service, not a reason to terminate the service. I have no evidence to support the only reason the Care Provider ended Mr C’s service was because of his complaint. However, the Council did not consider whether alternative days or times might have been possible to retain this service. The Council says Mr C is very specific about his call times; it has not evidenced this. I consider it is possible with discussion there might have been a chance to retain the existing service on an alternative day or time, especially given the problems experienced by all care providers as explained by the Council. Without this discussion ever taking place we cannot know whether the outcome might have been different. Although the Council says it was an opportunity to make a change, that was not necessarily what Mr C wanted. He was happy to continue, he just wanted the areas of concern he raised to be dealt with, which they mostly had been.
39. The Council faced some issues getting alternative provision, but this was not because of fault of the Council. It was following its correct process to source support. Having said that, the Council has a duty to meet Mr C’s assessed eligible care needs and it failed to consistently do so over this time. Though it arranged a taxi service to take Mr C to the shop, he did not have someone to support him with his shopping. Though Mr C has told me on occasion the taxi driver did kindly come into the shop. Mr C will have had limited social interaction with the taxi driver and shop workers.

What happened next

40. The Council was satisfied with the Care Provider’s investigation and took no further action. However, there were outstanding issues which Mr C had not had a response about. The Council chased the Care Provider but nothing further was forthcoming. So, Mr C came to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

41. I must now consider whether there was fault by the Council, or the Care Provider acting on its behalf, which caused injustice to Mr C. If there is, and the injustice is significant enough to warrant a remedy, I will recommend what actions I consider the Council should take.
42. The main thrust of Mr C’s complaint is that all these issues add up to a service that is not good enough and does not warrant the fees requested. Mr C did not pay towards this care support, so there is no direct financial injustice to him. The Council is satisfied the Care Provider is performing in accordance with its contract, and there is no reason to withhold, or request refund of, any fees. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take, and I see no reason to question or criticise it. The Council has reached its decision based on periodic assessments under its Quality Assurance Framework.
43. Mr C says he is a vulnerable adult with a whole list of health problems. The consistent failings caused a high level of stress.
44. There was an impact on Mr C when the care worker arrived early without warning, which was a shock, was upsetting, and made Mr C feel rushed. There was an impact on Mr C when the service ended, and some care calls were missed. Mr C struggled to complete his own shopping and missed out on social interaction. This was over a short period. There also was an impact in relation to the driveway issues. This took a long time to resolve, with periods of inaction and no substantive responses to the issue. Mr C attempted to clean the driveway himself, was upset by the aesthetic of it, and had some time and trouble contacting the relevant parties to resolve the matter.
45. In mitigation, it was likely at some time Mr C would incur the cost of purchasing cleaning materials or paying a company to clean his drive. Although not a perfect service, the Council arranged a taxi service so that Mr C could still complete his shopping; he got out of the house and had some limited interaction with other people. Mr C was without a Care Provider for a short period of time.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found some fault with the service of the care provider, I have made all recommendations to the Council.
47. During this investigation the Care Provider has arranged the professional driveway clean and has paid £50 to cover costs of damaged carpet.
48. To acknowledge the remaining impact on Mr C, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr C for failing to tell him when a care worker would arrive early, for not always meeting his assessed eligible care needs, and for the delays and poor communication resolving the issues around the drive cleaning.
2. Make a symbolic payment to Mr C of £50 in recognition of the cost, time and effort involved in attempting to clean the drive himself and the impact of having a taxi service rather than care agency support for a month.
49. The Council should complete the actions within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and provide evidence of its compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation because the agreed action is enough to acknowledge the impact on Mr C.
51. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman