Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of service provided to Mr X by two care providers. The Council has already taken suitable action to remedy injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained two care providers, commissioned by the Council, did not provide a service appropriate to his needs. He said the lack of suitable support delayed his recovery from severe burnout and caused him stress and frustration. He wanted the Council to refund his contributions to care fees and for the care providers to apologise to him directly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
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:

• 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), 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. Mr X complains two care providers did not support him in line with his neurodiversity. The Council commissioned the providers to support Mr X in developing independence, including social aspects such as working towards employment. Mr X says the providers instead focused on providing personal care and help with domestic tasks.
7. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and found the providers had not given Mr X personal care, but had on some occasions focused on domestic tasks around his home and had not recorded how they had supported him with developing his skills and independence. It recognised the impact of this on Mr X, and it apologised and offered him a symbolic payment of £300. Mr X was not satisfied this properly acknowledged the impact of events on him and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. When we consider how to remedy injustice caused to a person, we focus on what would have happened but for any fault. Mr X would have paid his contributions to the charges for his care in any event. He has not suffered a quantifiable financial impact due to the issues raised. It therefore does not follow that the Council should refund him for his contributions.
9. Mr X received support, although it did not meet his needs at all times. The injustice Mr X experienced was stress and frustration, and possibly some delay in his recovery from burnout. If we investigated the matter, we would likely make a recommendation in the same range as the Council’s offer, as it is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. This says that where appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress (which includes stress and frustration) of up to £500. Considering the severity of Mr X’s distress and the length of time involved, the Council’s offer is suitable and we could not achieve a different outcome by investigating the matter further.
10. Where we find fault with the actions of a service provider, we can make recommendations to the Council alone. We could not therefore recommend the care providers themselves apologise to Mr X. The Council’s apology is suitable.
11. The Council also considered service improvement recommendations for the care providers. It recommended one provider give training to its staff on neurodiversity, and the Council proposed to carry out quality assurance monitoring for both providers. I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken and proposes to take, and we could not achieve anything of value by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy injustice caused to Mr X

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman