Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Care Provider failed to provide suitable home support. There is either not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Care Provider failed to provide her with suitable support.
2. She said this caused her upset and put her in danger.
3. She wants the Council to cancel her unpaid invoice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X’s carer had to go to hospital and so the Council arranged a care package for her. This consisted of 2 daily visits lasting 30 minutes each.
8. The Care Provider sent Ms X a bill for the package around 6 weeks after the care started. Ms X immediately cancelled her care and complained. Her complaints covered several matters and included:
• a failure to arrive at the arranged times;
• charging her for visits she cancelled;
• failure to record a health incident on her records; and
• single incidents relating to the recording incorrect details of her health conditions, a carer wearing perfume, having to show one carer how to make her lunch and putting rubbish in the wrong bin.
9. The Care Provider responded. It said:
• its carers’ log in details were captured electronically and the system showed they had arrived within the agreed time slots and often stayed for significantly longer than specified in her care package;
• Ms X often cancelled visits at very short notice which was not in keeping with its cancellation policy;
• the incident Ms X specified had been electronically recorded at the time by the carer, who had supported her to call an ambulance; and
• in relation to the other matters, these had been one-off events which the care Provider had apologised for and rectified immediately.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The electronic records support the Care Provider's response in relation to the times and duration of the visits. The Care Provider was entitled to charge for visits which were cancelled at short notice.
11. The other matters were resolved at the time and in any case did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is either not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman