Summary: The care provider was within its right to terminate its services, and it did so after following the correct process. There can be now worthwhile outcome from any further investigation by this office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a care provider, commissioned by the Council, to provide domiciliary care to his wife, Mrs X, made false allegations about his behaviour and unfairly withdraw care without another care provider in place.

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:

• it is unlikely further investigation will 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 and documentation Mr X and the Council provided.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

4. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.

Key Facts

5. The Council commissioned a care agency to provide Mrs X with domiciliary care. Mr X says the care provider made allegations about his behaviour then withdrew care on 19 October 2020 with no other care provider in place. He says there was no hard evidence to support the claims and the care provider failed to investigate properly. He believes his reputation has been compromised and this along with the withdrawal of care, caused him and his wife great distress.
6. The Council’s records show the care provider gave the Council 28 days’ notice on 26 August 2021, citing a breakdown of relations with Mr X. The Council was unable to source alternative provision within the notice period, so the care provider continued providing care until a new provider was found in October 2021.
7. Mr X submitted a formal complaint directly to the care provider asking it to investigate the allegations made against him and expressing his dissatisfaction that it had withdrawn care to his wife. It responded on 8 November 2021. The author said the company had not taken the decision lightly, that it was a result of a breakdown in relations and that it had followed the correct procedure in giving notice to the Council, and it had continued beyond the end date until a new care provider was found. The author went onto say that under such circumstances the company was under no obligation to conduct a full investigation.

Analysis

8. It is not my intention to investigate the allegations made about Mr Y’s behaviour towards the care provider. If it received repeated and consistent reports from care staff about Mr X’s behaviour, it was within its rights to terminate its services, it did not need hard evidence. It is the process of terminating the care that needs consideration.
9. The care provider submitted a termination notice to the Council giving 28-days’ notice. This was in line with the terms of the contract and was not fault. It continued providing care beyond the end until a new care provider could be found. Mrs X was not without care.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The investigation into this complaint is discontinued. The care provider was within its right to terminate its services, and it did so after following the correct process.
11. There can be now worthwhile outcome from any further investigation by this office.
12. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman