Summary: Mr X complained the care provider refused to use a hoist to transfer his mother Mrs Y and cancelled her care without notice leaving Mrs Y without appropriate care and causing them distress and frustration. The care provider has apologised and refunded two weeks of fees which Mr X is satisfied with. We have therefore ended the investigation as it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the care provider refused to use the hoist recommended by the Occupational Therapist to support his mother Mrs Y. This meant she was unable to get out of bed. It then cancelled Mrs Y’s care without notice leaving her without appropriate care and charged for care when it was not needed. It also failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint which caused Mr X frustration.

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 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

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the care provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I considered third party information provided by the local Council.
4. I gave Mr X and the care provider the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In November 2023 the care provider started supporting Mrs Y with personal care and domestic tasks. In June 2024 an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mrs Y at home for a sling and hoist to be used for Mrs Y’s transfers. The care provider was unhappy with the sling used for transfers. An OT visited Mrs Y and demonstrated the sling to staff. However, the care provider remained unhappy with the hoisting arrangements and in September 2024 supported Mrs Y in bed. Two weeks later, following a telephone discussion with Mr X, the care provider terminated the care arrangement without notice. The Council implemented an emergency care package. Mrs Y later moved to a care home.
6. Mr X complained to the care provider about it not using the sling and terminating the care package. He disputed the care charges for September 2024. The care provider did not agree to cancel the care charges and did not respond to the complaint, so Mr X complained to us.
7. In September 2024 the Council received a safeguarding alert regarding the support provided to Mrs Y. It investigated and decided the concerns were partially substantiated. It updated its strategic commissioning team with the outcome.
8. We notified the care provider of the complaint and requested some information. Mr X later contacted us and advised the care provider had been in touch and had apologised for what had happened. It had also refunded two weeks of care fees to Mrs Y. Mr X and Mrs Y were satisfied with this outcome.
9. This is the outcome Mr X and Mrs Y were seeking. The Council has also considered the concerns under its safeguarding procedures. I have therefore discontinued my investigation as the injustice caused to Mrs Y has been remedied and is a satisfactory outcome to the complaint. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

10. I have ended the investigation as the care provider has remedied any injustice caused to Mr Y and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman