Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the domiciliary care provided to the complainant’s father. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. For some parts of the complaint there is not enough evidence of fault, in others the personal injustice is not significant enough. For the rest of the complaint, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Care Provider’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the domiciliary care received by his father (Mr Y). Mr X complained about damage to property, the Care Provider refusing to meet with him, and a failure to provide shopping lists leaving Mr Y without essential items.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider has responded to Mr X’s complaints. It said that:
• A plug socket close to Mr Y’s bed was damaged by a care worker. This had now been repaired.
• Mr X had originally said he did not want the Care Provider to refund the £5.99 it cost to repair Mr Y’s tumble dryer. It would not therefore be refunding this amount.
• The Care Provider could not say how long a leak had been present which caused damage to the floor. It would not therefore pay for the damage but would consider paying the excess if Mr Y claimed on his insurance.
• It did not think meeting was a good idea due to COVID-19. But a meeting had taken place in July 2021 with the Council and a further meeting was not considered necessary.
• Mr Y's shopping list was the same each fortnight. The Care Provider could book the same delivery slot each fortnight and email Mr X if any extra items were needed.
7. I understand Mr X is concerned about the issues at the heart of his complaint. But we will not start an investigation into his complaint. This is because:
• The plug socket has been repaired and we could not achieve anything more.
• The injustice from the damaged tumble dryer is not enough to warrant an investigation.
• We could not say how the floor became damaged and if the Care Provider should pay for it.
• The Care Provider is not required to meet with Mr X and the Council commissioned its services. However, the Council told me Mr Y now receives his care from a different provider. Mr X can ask to meet with the Council about any issues with the new provider.
• The Care Provider put forward a solution to the shopping issue and I have not seen any evidence of significant personal injustice warranting an investigation.
8. We will not therefore investigate for the above reasons.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code on fault, injustice and what we could achieve have not been met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman