Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioning arrangements for care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for not telling him his Care Provider were stopping its services. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about the Care Provider who he received domiciliary care from. He said the Care Provider had sent a carer who did not speak English. He said that meant he could not communicate his care needs to them.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision to continue to commission care from the Care Provider. He said the Care Quality Commission rated the Care Provider as inadequate and that he had testimonies from fellow service users and staff about the poor standard of care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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.
6. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Care Provider had sent a carer who did not speak English. He said that meant he had to meet his own care needs on that occasion.
8. In the Council’s response it said it had contacted the Care Provider who confirmed Mr X’s usual carer had telephoned in sick. The Care Provider arranged another carer to attend. It said it had sent the most appropriate carer available. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Care Provider’s response, we will not investigate this further. It was an isolated incident therefore any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
9. Shortly after this, the Care Provider stopped providing services in the area Mr X lived. That meant carers did not attend one morning as agreed. Mr X contacted the Council which arranged alternative provision that day. It continued to meet Mr X’s care needs until it found a new provider. In its complaint response, the Council apologised to Mr X for not telling him the Care Provider was discontinuing its service. It said it would review its internal processes to reduce future recurrence. Therefore, we will not investigate as further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and there is no outstanding injustice to Mr X.
10. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to commission care from the Care Provider. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed the Care Provider was registered with CQC and able to provide domiciliary care services. It said it was in contact with the CQC and there were no significant concerns that would warrant the Council decommissioning the Service. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to commission services from the Care Provider to justify investigating. In addition, this decision has not caused Mr X a significant injustice as he receives care from a different provider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s commissioning arrangements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman