Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Miss X’s adult son. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about actions of the Care Provider and its carers when supporting her son, Mr Y. Her complaint included:
• a carer lying on their report of an incident where Mr Y attacked them.
• carers having been stood two metres away from Mr Y on one occasion, which if repeated in the community would create risk for Mr Y.
• different members of staff being sent at short notice, meaning Mr Y’s need for regular carers, who were familiar with his triggers, was not supported.
• staff calling the family regularly when there were issues and seeming not to have the necessary specialist autism and restraint training.
• the owner's attitude when Miss X complained.
2. Miss X said the events led to distress for her and risk to Mr Y. She said the family did not get the respite the care aimed to provide. She wanted the Care Provider to cease trading and / or have its status as an autism specialist provider revoked.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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 provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We could not say whether a staff member lied on a report. Miss X’s concern related to a verbal discussion, of which there is no substantive evidence.
7. We also could not come to sound conclusions around Miss X’s concern carers may have kept a distance from Mr Y when out in the community. This part of the complaint is based on suspicion. Even if we could say carers had kept a distance from Mr Y, we could not say what impact this had on him and subsequent events.
8. The evidence I have seen shows the Care Provider was alert to the fact Mr Y could display challenging behaviour, and to the need to consider what triggered this. Carers reported showing affection to Mr Y, but also being aware of the risk of him displaying challenging behaviour towards them. The correspondence I have seen does not show any substantive evidence of a dismissive or inappropriate attitude towards Miss X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Provider’s actions.
9. Nonetheless, the Care Provider apologised to Miss X and arranged refresher training for its staff relating to behaviours of distress, report writing and communication. Investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different, more meaningful outcome.
10. We could not achieve the outcomes Miss X says she seeks from complaining. We are not a regulatory body and cannot assess a Care Provider’s registration status. It is open to Miss X to contact the Care Quality Commission.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman