Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, as brought by his representative Mr Y, about the care firm commissioned by the Council to provide domiciliary care to him in 2023 and how it responded to his complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X such significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would now achieve for Mr X. We do not investigate correspondence and complaint handling when not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has domiciliary care visits commissioned by the Council. He received provision from a firm, for about three months in 2023. Mr Y is Mr X’s professional advocate. Mr Y complains on Mr X’s behalf that the care firm:
1. did not explain the boundaries of what kinds of activities they would be able to provide support for;
2. judged him for having female carers;
3. reacted disproportionately to him buying gifts for his carers;
4. had a poor attitude towards him;
5. did not properly consider his concerns and responded to them with incorrect information.
2. Mr X says he had a lack of support and access to hours in the community, such as going swimming, and had to change care providers. Mr X wants the firm to improve its service as does not want others to have the same experiences with the firm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the firm did not tell him they could not provide a female carer to accompany him when going swimming. The firm says Mr X did not ask about this activity when the care started in summer 2023. Once Mr X did ask, the firm says it told him that male or female carers could not provide support when going swimming because they were unable to do the appropriate risk assessment. Staff advised Mr X that a female carer would not have been appropriate for a swimming visit in any event, as they would not have access to and be able to help Mr X in his changing room. Mr X met with the care firm to discuss this and other matters. The firm explained what kinds of social activities it could support him with. It also made clear that carers could not use their own cars to go on such activities because they would not be insured for that use.
6. The firm gave Mr X the reasons why it could not provide carers, whether male or female, to accompany and support him to go swimming. It also explained why staff could not use their own vehicles to take him to any other social activity. The firm was entitled to have those policies in place and apply them. There is not enough evidence of fault in the firm’s actions on this issue to warrant an investigation.
7. Mr X says the care firm judged him for requesting female carers because a care staff member asked him why he had female carers. We cannot find what was said in that conversation between Mr X and a member of care staff. While such a question from the staff member would be unfortunate, it does not amount to the firm judging Mr X on his personal care choices, nor to fault by the care firm which would warrant us investigating now.
8. Mr X says he gave a gift to a carer which cost £1.25. The firm says Mr X gave carers this and various other gifts, which it told him staff could not accept. They explained the policy of carers not taking gifts was there to prevent allegations of them taking any financial advantage and was there to protect care users and staff. It is not fault for a firm to have such a policy and to apply it. There is not enough evidence of fault by the firm here to justify an investigation.
9. Mr X says the firm did not speak to him appropriately when he called the management team and did not call him back when a call was interrupted. The firm says staff listened to and gave time to Mr X when he called. It says Mr X sometimes called the office two or three times a day, calls which would last between 15 and 60 minutes. It says the staff member whose call was interrupted promised no call back. An investigation of the calls would not be able to determine something as subjective as care staff members’ attitudes towards Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the firm on this matter, or sufficient evidence that an investigation could gather, to warrant an investigation.
10. Even if there has been fault by the care firm on any of the issues from paragraphs seven to nine above, we will not investigate. We recognise Mr X may have been annoyed or frustrated at the positions taken and replies given to him by the care firm on these matters. But taken either individually or together, and in the context of the length of time Mr X received the firm’s services, they did not cause him sufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.
11. We also note Mr X has not received care from the firm since autumn 2023. So any issues he once had with the service are not ongoing and ended several months ago. The outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is for the care firm to improve its service. But it is a service Mr X has not used since autumn 2023. There is no worthwhile outcome regarding his ongoing care that an investigation would achieve for him. Should there be dissatisfied current or future users of the firm’s service, it would be for them to make their own complaints.
12. Mr X considers the firm did not respond to his concerns properly. We do not investigate correspondence and complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause such significant personal injustice to justify us investigating; and
• there is no worthwhile outcome investigation would now achieve for him; and
• we do not investigate correspondence and complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman