Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Care Provider overcharging and failing to respond to the complaint, because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Care Provider owes money for services it did not provide. The Care Provider has failed to reply to the complaint. Mr B is angry and upset and wants a refund plus £50 for his time and trouble.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B says the Care Provider has charged for a care call that did not take place, and one that was cancelled but the care worker still turned up. Mr B wants a refund and confirmation he will not be charged for the cancelled call. The Care Provider failed to reply to Mr B’s e-mails about the issues.
6. The Ombudsman must focus its resource on the most serious of cases. The financial injustice here is relatively small, and although Mr B is understandably angry and upset at the poor communication from the Care Provider, the injustice in this case is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman