Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. The Council has refunded the cost of Mrs Y’s care and apologised to her daughter, Mrs X. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more meaningful.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about:
• poor quality domiciliary care provided to her mother, Mrs Y;
• delays in complaint-handling; and
• failure to address all elements of the complaint.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and inconvenience, and Mrs Y’s safety was placed at risk. Mrs X wanted the Council to refund Mrs Y’s care fees.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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. Mrs X complained to us about the care her mother received at home, and the Council’s complaint-handling.
7. During its internal complaints process, the Council refunded some of Mrs Y’s fees to acknowledge some care hours had not been delivered as charged. The Council did not respond to Mrs X’s complaints about the quality of care that had been delivered. Mrs X replied to the Council and it offered to consider the matter further.
8. The Council issued a further complaint response in which it offered to refund the remaining fees Mrs Y had paid for her care. The refund Mrs Y has received is around £1,500.
9. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything different and would not be a proportionate use of public funds. The Council has provided a financial remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs Y which we would not be able to improve on. Any remaining injustice would be to Mrs X, however it is not proportionate for us to investigate the matter further because:
• While the work Mrs X carried out to collate and analyse evidence herself may have led to earlier resolution, we do not require people to carry out their own investigation before referring matters to us. We would likely not decide Mrs X’s time and trouble was a direct result of fault by the care provider or the Council.
• The Council apologised to Mrs X for the delay in complaint-handling. We would not normally investigate complaint-handling alone as it is not a good use of public resources when we are not investigating the substantive matter. Mrs X’s frustration about the delays is likely not a significant enough injustice, warranting investigation in its own right.
• There is not an overwhelming other reason to investigate the matter further, for example in the public interest. It is now open to the Council to carry out its own quality monitoring of the care provider as it sees fit, given the issues Mrs X raised. Any further complaints about the care provider can be signposted to us where appropriate, for consideration in their own right.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has refunded care fees for the time Mrs Y used the care provider in question, and further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more meaningful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman