Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care from a Council commissioned care provider and its decision to terminate his adult son’s care package. We ended our investigation as the events happened too long ago and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the quality of care from a Council commissioned care provider which he says terminated its service early leaving his son Mr S without his full care package. In particular, he complained a care worker left Mr S on his own, slapped his hand and was rude to the family. In addition, Mr X says staff were often late on shifts and left early.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him on the telephone. I considered the care provider’s complaint response.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr S is a young adult. He has high physical support needs and uses a wheelchair. Mr S received a Council commissioned care package from a care provider.
7. In mid-August 2019 the care provider gave the Council one month’s notice to terminate the care package from mid-September 2019. A week later Mr X met with an Area Manager from the care provider. Following this the Area Manager emailed Mr X and said ‘we will struggle to cover the package of care after the end of September due to staff shortages and the complexity of the care package’. Mr X responded and asked if the care services would be fully terminated after September. The Area Manager responded that the care provider ‘won’t be able to provide any part of the service after September’.
8. In late September 2019 Mr X complained to the care provider. He requested exact reasons why it had terminated the care package. He complained the Area Manager said the care provider would not be able to keep the care package until after the end of September. Mr X therefore considered the care provider had extended the termination date by two weeks to the end of the month. However, it then terminated the care package mid-September. Mr X said this meant he had to cancel meetings and take leave to support Mr S while a new agency was found. Mr X raised other issues including:
• care workers were late and left early, leaving Mr S alone downstairs when Mr X was working upstairs;
• a care worker slapped Mr S on the hand at the swimming pool;
• a care worker had sworn;
• about the wording of an email sent from the office; and
• care workers refusing to shower Mr S every day rather than every other day.
9. The care provider responded in early October 2019. It partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said it gave the required termination notice to the Council. It said it could see from the emails where the assumption regarding the end of September may have come from. It apologised for any miscommunication and said it did try to look at staffing alternatives, but it was unable to cover the package after the termination date. In addition it said it:
• accepted care workers were running late on some occasions and had to leave to care for other service users.
• had spoken to the care worker regarding the alleged slap, who said they had placed their hand on Mr S’s to stop him moving towards the water in his wheelchair. The care provider said it had escalated this to the social worker.
• had taken appropriate action to deal with the care worker who swore.
• had dealt with the staff member who sent the unnecessary email through the appropriate procedures.
• said care workers should have been more flexible regarding assisting Mr S with showering. It said it had met with all care workers and reiterated its expectations regarding this.
10. The care provider apologised to Mr X. In addition, it said it had related Mr X’s concerns to the staff involved and that all branch staff would attend further training to ensure they responded to complaints appropriately. It said relevant care staff had been or were going through an internal process to ensure policies and procedures were adhered to. It signposted Mr X to us.
11. Mr X complained to us in January 2022. Mr X wants the care provider to acknowledge their short comings.

Findings

12. The law says a complaint should be made to us within 12 months of the person first becoming aware of the matter. The care provider signposted Mr X to us in 2019. It was open to Mr X to come to us at that time and I see no good grounds to consider this complaint now. Mr S has not used the care provider since September 2019.
13. The care provider responded to Mr X’s concerns at the time. It apologised and set out the actions it had taken to address his concerns. Even if I were to investigate further, given the passage of time it is unlikely I would be able to achieve anything more or reach any different conclusions from those already reached by the care provider.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have ended my investigation as the events happened too long ago and it is unlikely there is anything I could achieve by investigating the issues further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman