Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, complained the Council cancelled a package of care at short notice causing distress to her mother and requiring her sister Mrs Y to find an alternative within a short timescale. There was no fault in respect of the termination of the care package. While it was distressing, there was no significant injustice caused in respect of Mrs Y finding an alternative.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z, on behalf of her mother Mrs X, complains the Council cancelled a package of care at short notice and without a replacement package in place.
2. Mrs Z says this distressed her mother and meant her sister Mrs Y had to take action within a short timescale to find alternative care for their mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant’s representative and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X is 90 and lives alone. Her daughters do not live locally, Mrs Z lives abroad and Mrs Y lives in the Midlands. The Council commissioned a package of care for Mrs X which was delivered by Kays Carers, Newton Abbot starting in April 2020. Mrs X was required to pay the full cost of the care package which was for two carers to visit four times a day.
7. On 27 September 2021, the Care Provider contacted the duty social worker saying they would end the package for Mrs X from 4 October and so alternative arrangements would be required from that date. However later the same day the Care Provider emailed the Council to say it was “handing back” the package of care because it was unable to fulfil the contract. It said Mrs X had been rude to the carers for a while and many were refusing to visit her. It said as a result it did not have capacity to continue to provide the care package.
8. The Council emailed the care provider on 28 September 2021 confirming the package of care for Mrs X would end after the lunch time visit that day. It then telephoned Mrs X who answered and said to speak to her daughter, Mrs Y and put the phone down. The Council telephoned Mrs Y and left a message asking her to call back urgently.
9. The Council spoke to Mrs Y later that day. Mrs Y said it was a total shock that the carers had terminated the care package and that she had no indication it was in jeopardy. Mrs Y says that if she had been told then she could have spoken to mother and ask her not to be rude. Mrs Y said she had been happy with the care provider but knew several carers had left the agency and so felt it was more a capacity issue.
10. The Council provided Mrs Y with details of a self employed carer who would be able to begin that evening. She said Mrs Y should phone the carer directly to make arrangements. Mrs Y was unhappy that this would result in her mother having to pay an additional £50 per month for the care.
11. The same day the Council made calls to care providers to see if they could cover the care package for Mrs X. The Council’s records indicate there was no double handed capacity and limited single handed availability. The self employed carer was able to provide care the same day and so there were no missed care visits to Mrs X.
12. The Council put details of the required care package on its unsourced care list. In November an care provider contacted the Council to say it could provide the tea time and evening visits but had no morning or lunch availability at that time. This offer was made to the family but it is my understanding they declined and continued to make private arrangements.
13. Mrs Z says there was no information on the Care Providers website to show how to make a complaint. She says she emailed them directly asking for a copy of the complaints process and while it said it would provide a copy it never did. I have not seen any copy emails to show the Care Provider did send Mrs Z a copy.

Analysis

14. The Care Provider stopped providing care to Mrs X at short notice. The information provided shows that it originally intended to give seven days notice but that this changed due to the lack of available carers. The care package was cancelled with just 24 hours notice.
15. The contract between the Council and the Care Provider allows for cancellation of the contract with one days notice due to violent or unduly disruptive behaviour of the service user. In this case the Care Provider says that Mrs X was rude and abusive to the carers to the point that many would not visit and provide care. The Council accepted the termination notice given on 27 September because the service could not be provided due to Mrs X’s behaviour. I am satisfied the contract allowed for this and so while not ideal for Mrs X, I find no fault.
16. I appreciate it was a shock for the family and Mrs X to learn the contract had been cancelled and that no notice for this was given. However when notifying Mrs Y the contract had been terminated, it also provided details of a self employed carer who was available immediately. The Council gave Mrs Y the telephone contact details for this carer and said she would need to telephone to make arrangements. As stated above, this was not an ideal situation but I am not persuaded this caused Mrs Y a significant enough injustice to warrant any further action by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman