London Borough of Ealing (24 000 008)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to arrange suitable care for her mother, Mrs X, when she was discharged from hospital. Mrs Y said this meant she and her sister, Ms W, had to provide the care instead. The Council was at fault for delay in arranging a new care provider to help Mrs X, when the original provider did not work out. This caused Mrs Y and her sister Ms W avoidable frustration and upset, for which the Council will apologise. The Council will also identify why the delay happened and what steps it needs to take to prevent similar fault in future.
The complaint
- Mrs Y complained the Council failed to arrange suitable care for her mother, Mrs X, when she was discharged from hospital. Mrs Y said this meant she and her sister, Ms W, had to take time away from their jobs and family to care for Mrs Y.
- Mrs X said this caused her and Ms W significant stress and upset.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered:
- all the information Mrs Y provided and discussed the complaint with her;
- the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
- the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
- Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened
- In early December 2023 Mrs X was in hospital receiving treatment for an injury. The Council assessed Mrs X’s needs and decided that when she returned home, she needed a care package of two carers for four visits per day. This was to meet her care and support needs while helping her build up her independence during her recovery. Mrs Y said she and Ms W could support Mrs X while the Council found a care provider to take over. Mrs Y explained she and Ms W could not provide that level of support long term.
- Mrs X was discharged in early December. The Council identified a suitable care provider, which visited for the first time a few days later, during the weekend. Mrs Y says that at the visit, the care workers:
- did not introduce themselves;
- failed to wear ID’s or personal protective equipment;
- did not engage Mrs X or get to know her; and
- did not wash their hands before providing Mrs X with personal care.
- The Council contacted Mrs Y the same day to see how the care package was going. Mrs Y expressed her concerns and said she was not willing to give the care provider another chance to improve. She asked the Council to find a new care provider. The Council agreed, but said it could not do that until the upcoming Monday. Mrs X agreed she and Ms W could help Mrs X until then.
- The Council next contacted the family in mid-January 2024. It spoke to Ms W and explained it had not been in contact sooner because of a miscommunication between teams involved with Mrs X. The Council asked if Mrs X still needed a care package and Ms W said one was no longer needed because Mrs X had recovered to her previous level of independence.
- Mrs Y complained to the Council in early February 2024. Mrs Y said she was unhappy with the quality of care delivered by the care provider. She also complained the Council had not contacted her or Ms W before mid-January. Mrs Y said this caused significant pressure on her and Ms W and was upsetting.
- The Council responded to the complaint to say it had spoken to the care provider about Mrs Y’s concerns with its care. It said the care provider had apologised for the issues Mrs Y had raised but that it would have been better for her to have told it at the time so it could have addressed her concerns.
Findings
- I have seen no reason to question Mrs Y’s account of the care provider’s visit to Mrs X. However, I do not consider, on the basis of the single visit, that there is enough evidence to say the concerns amount to fault. Particularly because, when a new care package starts, there is often a short period of adjustment as care workers become familiar with the person receiving care, their family, and the support needed.
- However, when Mrs Y told the Council she wanted a new care provider, the Council agreed to contact her the following Monday to make arrangements. That did not happen and ultimately, the Council next contacted the family in mid-January 2024, five weeks later. While, in such circumstances it would have been best if Mrs Y or Ms W had contacted the Council to follow up, it was still at fault for failing to promptly arrange a new care provider for Mrs X.
- Fortunately, Mrs Y and Ms W were able to support Mrs X while she recovered from her injury. This meant Mrs X did not experience an injustice from the fault, but Mrs Y and Ms W did. They were put to avoidable distress and frustration.
- The Council has explained its delay in contacting Mrs Y to arrange a new care provider was because of a miscommunication between teams. I consider a recommendation is needed to prevent a similar fault happening again in future.
- The Council was also at fault for a poor complaints response. Mrs Y’s clearly complained about the quality of care delivered by the care provider and the Council’s failure to arrange a new provider. The Council’s complaint response only addressed the quality of care. This caused Mrs Y further avoidable frustration.
Agreed action
- Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
- Apologise to Mrs Y for the frustration and distress she felt because of its delay in contacting her to arrange a new care provider for Mrs X and because of its poor response to her complaint.
- Apologise to Ms W for the frustration and distress she felt because of its delay in contacting her to arrange a new care provider for Mrs X.
- Consider why the miscommunication that led to the Council’s delay in contacting Mrs Y to arrange a new care provider occurred. The Council will identify any steps that are needed to prevent the fault happening again in future. It will send the Ombudsman details of those actions, when they will be completed by, and who is responsible for completing them.
- We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
- The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman