Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of support to complain about a care worker, and about a failure to allocate a named social worker to her case. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that an investigation would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X receives care and support from a Care Provider. Miss X said one of the Care Provider’s care workers was emotionally abusive toward her. At Miss X’s request, a worker from Derby County Council (the Council) helped her to complain to the Care Provider about the care worker. Miss X got a response but remained dissatisfied.
2. Miss X complains the Council has failed to continue to support her to pursue her outstanding concerns about the care worker.
3. Also, Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide her with an allocated social worker who she can contact by using voice recognition.
4. Miss X said that, because of these failings, she has not been able to fully pursue all her concerns about the care worker and she remains without a named social worker.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered Miss X’s complaint and papers provided by the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared a draft decision with Miss X and spoke to her on the telephone about it.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council sent a stage one complaint response to Miss X in late 2023. It responded to several concerns. This included a complaint about the decision of one of its social workers that Miss X no longer needed an allocated social worker.
9. The Council said it was not standard practice for its Community Support Teams to allocate a named social worker to a service user in the long-term. The Council said, in line with this, it had been correct for a social worker to end her involvement with Miss X when the social worker felt she had completed the necessary work.
10. The Council said that, while it might be preferable, it could not allocate a named worker to all service users because of service demands. However, the Council said Miss X continued to have an allocated social worker at the time of writing. It also said it would discuss Miss X’s request for an allocated worker with a team manager.
11. In the spring of 2024 a Council officer began supporting Miss X to make a complaint to the Care Provider. The Care Provider responded later in the year.
12. In October 2024 the Council decided to close its file on Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s Quality Monitoring Team contacted the Care Provider and asked it to investigate several concerns.
13. The Council sent a stage two complaint response to Miss X in February 2025.
14. The Council said it had acted appropriately to help Miss X to raise her concerns about a care worker, and to follow up concerns with the Care Provider. It said it completed a proportionate investigation. The Council said there was nothing further it could add. It said it could not insist the care provider took any specific action in relation to the named care worker. It also noted that it had given Miss X the option of changing providers but Miss X had not wanted to do so. The Council noted that an advocacy service may be able to assist Miss X with her outstanding concerns and provided contact details for one.
15. The Council said the stage one investigating officer and a social worker had discussed Miss X’s request for a long-term allocated social worker with the team manager. The Council said it could not allocate a social worker to Miss X indefinitely as it was “not something we can offer as a service at this time”. However, the Council said it would “allocate a worker from the team should you[r] needs, or circumstances change, requiring support from adult social care”. The Council said it would try to allocate a worker who was familiar with Miss X’s needs and circumstances. The Council said Miss X could contact the Council’s duty team if she needed any support and noted she had recently done so.

Analysis

16. Miss X has received a response to her concerns from the Care Provider, and the Council’s Quality Monitoring Team has made its own enquiries with the Care Provider. It appears the Care Provider has removed the named care worker from Miss X’s rota and the Council offered Miss X an opportunity to change provider. The Council would not be able to have influence on any disciplinary or personnel matters within the Care Provider. The Council has also signposted Miss X to an advocacy service which may be able to pursue her outstanding concerns with the Care Provider.
17. This appears to be a proportionate and adequate response to Miss X’s concerns. It is unlikely an investigation would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, or evidence of an unremedied injustice.
18. The Council has explained that it does not have the resources to allocate a named social worker to Miss X without a specific piece of work to complete (for example, a needs review). The Council has highlighted that Miss X can contact its duty team in relation to any concerns she has. It has also undertaken to consider the need to allocate a named worker to her on an issue-by-issue basis.
19. Again, this appears to be an appropriate and proportionate response. It is unlikely an investigation would find any evidence of fault.
20. Without clear indications of fault, it would not be a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s resources to start an investigation of these concerns.

Back to top

Decision

21. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would be able to find evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman