Summary: The care provider gave a satisfactory standard of care to Mr A although there were some disagreements with Mrs X, his representative. The care provider responded to complaints about individual carers as they arose and that has remedied any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X (the complainant) complains about the actions of various live-in carers from the Council’s commissioned care provider Agincare. She complains that carers shouted or argued, did not clean their shared bathroom, failed to monitor Mr A’s medication properly, did not close his catheter properly and about some damage by bleach to towels and furnishings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council and care provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. All parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions.
7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 introduced the “Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)”. This replaced the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves.

What happened

8. Mr A is an elderly man who lives with his longtime landlady and friend Mrs X in her house. Mrs X has LPA for Mr A although Mr A is deemed to still have capacity to make his own decisions. Mr A has several health conditions and is at high risk of falls: he had several hospital admissions and after the last one, in February 2024, went into respite care in a care home. It was agreed that he would require a live-in carer to enable him to return home. Mrs X was no longer able to support Mr A in between domiciliary care visits as she had done previously.
9. The Council commissioned Agincare to provide live-in carers for Mr A when he returned home.
10. Mrs X says there was a catalogue of errors over the next seven months. She says carers forgot medication, damaged some property, shouted and argued and sometimes forgot to close the valve on Mr A’s catheter, so urine drained out onto his sock and slipper.
11. A sample of carer’s notes show disagreements between the carer and Mrs X. They included disagreements about the carer’s breaks (“Mr A told her that l have to have my breaks everyday. She told us both to shut up and she pushed me out of the room and shut the door”), responsibility for collecting Mr A’s prescriptions, payment for transport. The carer said Mrs X told her she couldn’t understand her English.
12. In December 2024 the care agency emailed Mrs X and gave notice on the contract, “due to yet another incident today between yourself and our care worker”. The care agency manager said she knew Mr A had got on well with the carers. The care agency manager also notified the Council so it could put emergency respite care in place.
13. Mrs X complained to the care provider in January about some of the carers. She said that the carers had had minimal duties, but it had been a very unpleasant seven months of her life.
14. The care provider responded. She partly upheld a complaint that a smoker had been sent when Mrs X had specifically requested a non-smoker. She did not uphold a complaint about a carer shouting at Mrs X as she said she had listened to a recording and could not hear any such evidence. She referred to some other incidents which had been resolved at the time. She reimbursed an amount for damage to towels and clothes which Mrs X said had been caused by a carer using bleach.
15. Mrs X complained to us. She said it had been a very unsettling time, and she never felt like her home was her own.

Analysis

16. It was unfortunate that Mrs X found successive carers unsatisfactory. The available evidence shows that the care provider responded to individual complaints promptly and were aware that Mr A generally got on well with the carers.
17. My view is that the actions of the care provider in its response to complaints and in reimbursing Mrs X where some damage may have been caused by carers is sufficient to remedy any injustice suffered.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have completed this investigation as the Council’s commissioned care provider has already agreed actions to remedy any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman