Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. The Council accepts failures in care support and delay responding to the complaint. The Council has apologised and waived the care fees. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs F says a care provider arranged by the Council provided poor care to her husband, Mr G. Mrs F says the Care Provider missed medications, failed to properly fill in the medication administration record, and did not stay for the full care call duration. Mrs F says the Council had no oversight, and missed opportunities to improve this service when she raised concerns. Mrs F is outraged that despite her concerns the Council did not visit Mr G or ever ask how he was. Mrs F says there was gross misconduct by certain employees, and they should lose their job. Mrs F says there was a breach of Mr G’s personal data.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr G received care at home from Complete Care Services (the Care Provider), which the Council arranged.
8. The Council accepts Mr G received a poor service. The Council has apologised, waived the care fees, and referred the quality concerns to relevant internal teams and to the Care Quality Commission who regulate care providers.
9. The Care Provider has stopped trading so is no longer providing a service to Mr G and is not a risk to any other clients.
10. Mrs F refers to gross misconduct. The Ombudsman has no powers to consider personnel matters, those are issues between employer and employee.
11. Mrs F refers to a breach of Mr G’s personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs F’s complaint. I appreciate Mrs F’s outrage at feeling the Council did not care about Mr G or try to visit him and find out how he was. I do not consider that would warrant investigation or that any further outcome would be achieved. The Council has acknowledged the impact on Mr G and Mrs F by apology and waiving care fees. The Care Provider has stopped trading so procedural improvements cannot be achieved. Though that might feel unsatisfactory to Mrs F, there is reassurance that no other client will receive the service Mr G received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman