Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the complaint, as the Care Provider has already provided satisfactory remedies and made service improvements where appropriate.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Care Provider, commissioned by the Council, did not communicate properly with her and did not meet her needs. She said this worsened her medical problems and caused her distress. She wanted an employee to be sacked and for the Care Provider to act on her complaints.

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:

• 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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained to the Care Provider about several issues in late 2023.

Parts of the complaint where the Care Provider accepted fault

6. The Care Provider acknowledged there had been some fault in its actions, for example:
• a carer who was unwell while on shift had not followed the correct procedures and had later been unwell at Miss X’s home; and
• its on-call member of staff had not tried an alternative form of communication when they could not contact Miss X by telephone to let her know a carer would be visiting.
7. In the areas where the Care Provider accepted fault, it explained the service improvement measures it would take to reduce the likelihood of issues reoccurring. This included training for its staff around communication, infection control, record-keeping and customer service. It apologised to Miss X. It also amended rotas and its record of carer compatibility, to align with Miss X’s wishes.

Parts of the complaint where the Care Provider did not accept fault

Parts we will not investigate due to insufficient evidence of fault

8. Miss X complained about care staff visiting early, while she was out of the house. She says the Care Provider was unable to provide an on-call carer for another two hours, during which time she remained in a soiled incontinence pad.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this part of the complaint. The Care Provider sent Miss X a rota in advance, advising the care call would be earlier than usual on this occasion.

Parts we will not investigate due to insufficient evidence of injustice

10. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate some parts of the complaint which the Care Provider did not uphold, because any fault by the Care Provider did not cause injustice to Miss X. These include:
• Miss X’s concern a member of staff had been expected to carry out her care call when their car had broken down; and
• Miss X’s concern about family relationships within the Care Provider’s staff team.
11. We could also not say worsening in Miss X’s health conditions was caused by any fault by the Care Provider. Miss X experienced some distress, for which the Care Provider’s apologies are satisfactory. There is insufficient evidence of remaining, unremedied significant injustice to Miss X that would warrant investigation.

We cannot achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating

12. We cannot make recommendations for staff members to be dismissed, and we could not therefore achieve this element of the action Miss X requests. The Care Provider has responded to Miss X’s complaints, and while she does not agree with some of the outcomes there is also nothing further our involvement would achieve. We would be unlikely to recommend anything different than the steps the Care Provider has already taken.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not provide anything meaningful in addition to the action the Care Provider has already taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman