Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about care provided to his wife by a care firm commissioned by the Council, and the Council’s actions in response to a safeguarding report received about him from a carer. There is insufficient personal injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X in relation to the care visits which warrants investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it investigated the safeguarding report to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Mrs X’s husband. Mrs X has Alzheimer’s and receives home care from a provider commissioned by the Council. Mr X complains:
1. Carer A from the former care firm did not provide Mrs X’s care on a visit in May 2022;
2. Carer A was assigned to visit again later on 2022, despite Mr X’s request for her not to be;
3. Carer A wrongly reported Mr X for ‘manhandling’ Mrs X.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him stress and sleepless nights. He does not want other vulnerable people to be similarly treated by the care firm.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Carer A visited Mrs X in May 2022 and did not provide her with the care she required. Mr X proved this to the care firm using CCTV evidence of the visit. Mr X asked the care provider not to send Carer A again as a result. The care provider did assign Carer A to Mrs X’s visit in October 2022 and Mr X allowed the visit to go ahead. Mr X says Carer A did not wash Mrs X and incorrectly considered this job required two carers to complete. Mr X says he removed his wife’s clothing so she could be washed, as she had soiled herself. Mr X says he received a call from the Council alleging he had ‘manhandled’ Mrs X. The Council visited him and viewed video footage from his CCTV. Officers decided they would not pursue the safeguarding report against Mr X.
6. I recognise the care visits in May and October 2022 may have caused Mr and Mrs X distress. It was unfortunate the care provider sent carer A to attend to Mrs X in October after Mr X had requested them not to after the May visit. But these were two incidents with one staff member which did not have a persistent impact on Mrs X’s care provision for that period. There is no ongoing risk to Mrs X’s provision from this firm because her care is no longer given by the same provider. There is not enough significant and subsisting injustice to Mr and Mrs X from this part of the complaint to warrant us investigating now.
7. I understand Mr X was caused stress and upset by the safeguarding report. But where a council receives a report which might require safeguarding action, its primary duty is to investigate to protect its service users. Council officers are required to consider all reports received irrespective of their sources. Officers could not prevent the person who made the report from doing so. They visited Mr X, viewed the evidence of the events during the October 2022 visit and decided to take the matter no further. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in response to the safeguarding report here to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X to warrant us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in the way it investigated the safeguarding report to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman