Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The issues are not ongoing as the Council changed the care provider.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the care provider acting for the Council provided a poor service to his relative, Mr C. Mr B raises concerns such as:
• Leaving the key safe and front door open.
• Leaving the hot tap running.
• Using lots of kitchen roll.
• Not washing hands or double gloving instead of changing gloves.
• Calling him defamatory names.
• Cancelled the care package when he raised concerns.
2. Mr B says this has caused stress and he would like an apology.

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 fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained 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.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council arranges adult social care for Mr C, care in Mr C’s home from a care provider. The actions of the care provider are on behalf of the Council.
7. The care provider has met with Mr B and given a thorough written response to his concerns. The care provider correctly reported the safety concerns and reminded its staff to follow procedures. The Council and Care Quality Commission (CQC) decided no further action was needed. The Council agreed to change the care provider, although Mr C did not want this it did resolve the ongoing concerns about the standard of service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to these investigations.
8. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
9. The failures in service caused distress to Mr B and Mr C, but not significant enough to justify our involvement. The issues are not ongoing as the Council changed the care provider. We would not investigate solely to achieve an apology.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The care provider has given a thorough response to the complaint, and the Council and CQC were involved. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman