Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her former Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. There are other agencies and organisations it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask to consider her concerns.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about her former Care Provider, Ms B says she received care from the provider between October 2020 and October 2021. Ms B complained about:

• behavior’s and attitudes of support staff and management;
• inconsistencies in daily logs and support plans, lack of rota;
• misuse of hours;
• concerns about other clients and children travelling in uninsured vehicles;
• time taken to respond to complaint;
• lies told by the agency which is slanderous, and has caused damage to her reputation;
• the Care Provider’s refusal to provide her with personal information requested under a Subject Access Request.

Ms B wants a full investigation into the way the Care Provider has acted and says they should be allowed to continue to support people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. We normally expect someone to complain to the Care Quality Commission about possible breaches of standards. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons to do so. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Care Provider has considered Ms B’s complaints some of which were investigated by the Local Authority as safeguarding matters. The outcome of the safeguarding investigation found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding.
9. Ms B says the lies told by the Care Provider are slanderous and has damaged her reputation. We could not make this finding. Slander and libel are properly for the courts to determine and it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the court to consider her concerns about slander. Ms B no longer uses this care Provider so there is no ongoing injustice to Ms B from its actions requiring an Ombudsman investigation.
10. Ms B is concerned other customers may be at risk because of the Care Provider’s actions. Ms B can ask the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to consider her concerns about the risks to others and it would be reasonable for her to do so.
11. Ms B says the Care Provider has refused to provide her with her personal information. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider her concerns about refusal of information.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we could not a finding of the kind Ms B wants or add to the Care Provider’s responses. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask other organisations to consider her concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman