Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision at home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms E complains that a Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council did not stay for the time paid for and would not provide access to electronic care records. Ms E says the Care Provider should stay and chat to her mother, Ms F, in any remaining time. Ms E says without access to the care records she could not oversee her mother’s care, for example whether Ms F had eaten. Ms E also complains about an incident with a care worker which left Ms F frightened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. Ms F has consented for Ms E to act for her in a complaint about Direct Care (Tameside) who was the Care Provider providing care on behalf of the Council.
5. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. We are sometimes unable to reach a conclusion on what happened and therefore cannot make a finding of fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council is responsible to meet Ms F’s adult social care needs so arranges a care provider to support her at home. Direct Care (Tameside) was previously employed as the Care Provider but ended the service following Ms E’s concerns. Ms F pays for her care support.
10. Ms E raised concerns that care workers were not staying for the full time Ms F was paying for, and asked that they stay and talk to Ms F. The Care Provider explained it does not charge by the minute. Most care agencies work in this way, they are employed to provide the care tasks on the care plan not for a specified time. So long as the tasks are complete or have been offered but refused by the person receiving the service, then the care provider does not have to stay for the full time allotted. If care calls are regularly much shorter or longer than contracted, it should trigger a review of the care as would suggest the care plan may not be sufficient. That happened in this case and the Council changed the care plan from three calls a day to four shorter calls a day. This meant Ms F was getting more interaction throughout the day while care staff were visiting to complete the tasks on the care plan. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in these actions.
11. Ms E raised concerns the Care Provider changed from written records in a physical book held at Ms F’s home to electronic records which Ms E could not access. Care providers must keep accurate, complete and detailed records for each person using the service. These records belong to the care provider and will help them identify themes and challenges in a person’s life and whether the care provision is effectively meeting needs. The care records are also key to accountability and as evidence for complaint investigations. The Care Provider can decide how to keep its records, and there is no fault in changing the format to electronic records. The Care Provider explained it could not provide Ms E access to the electronic records. I do not have the reason for this but presume there was a risk of Ms E seeing data she was not entitled to or that she could amend the electronic data. Instead, the Care Provider used a communication book at Ms F’s home, so that Ms E and the Care Provider (and anyone else visiting Ms F) could continue to share relevant information. The Care Provider also said it could give Ms E printed records monthly if she agreed to pay an administrative fee. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in these actions.
12. Ms E telephones Ms F daily. One morning Ms F was upset and said the care worker the night before had shouted at her. Ms F and the care worker have different versions of events so it unlikely the Ombudsman would find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms E’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. The Care Provider is no longer providing care support to Ms F so the issues are not continuing and there is no evidence of a significant injustice that would warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It is unlikely an investigation would reach any different outcome; we would not recommend a refund for times the Care Provider did not stay the full length of the care call, because there was no fault in its actions.
14. Ms E has made a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act so she can see Ms F’s care records. If Ms E has any issue with the Care Provider’s response, she can escalate that concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman