Summary: We did not find fault with Azure Charitable Foundation for cancelling Mr Z’s provision of care. We found fault with Azure Charitable Foundation for failing to share its complaint process and a copy of Mr Z’s contract or service user guide with Miss X, Mr Z’s relative. This did not cause a significant personal injustice to either Miss X or Mr Z.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained Azure Charitable Foundation (Azure) terminated the contract of support for her brother, Mr Z, without justification.
2. Miss X says Mr Z received 22.5 hours of support each week from Azure funded through Mr Z’s direct payments, but this support stopped from 22 April 2025. Miss X says this impacted on her brother’s mental health and day-to-day activities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. If they have caused a significant injustice or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34 B, 34C and 34 H(3 and 4) as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and Azure Charitable Foundation as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and Azure Charitable Foundation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Azure Charitable Foundation Terms of Service

7. Azure’s terms and conditions of service outline:
• that it is not responsible for specifying how much care or support a person receives. Azure says its role is the delivery of this service as specified through a person’s care and support plan produced by the local authority.
• it has the right to withdraw provision of its services under contracts agreed with service users at its own discretion. Azure says where it decides to withdraw its service it will provide 28 days’ notice and tell the local authority to enable it to arrange continuity of service. Azure confirms it has no duty to provide services beyond the 28-day notice period.
• various circumstances in which it reserves the right to withdraw provision for a person immediately and without notice. This includes delinquency in payment for services provided and making repeat requests to vary delivery of the service or cancel the delivery of the service.
• that any cancellations, or variation to the agreed schedule outlined in a person’s care and support plan, must be made no less than 28 days before it is due to provide the services. Azure outlines it will try to reallocate resources to accommodate requests but, if it cannot, a person is liable for the full cost of services. If a person provides less than 72 hours notice Azure says a person will be liable for the full cost of services without exception.

Azure Charitable Foundation complaints procedure

8. Azure has a two-stage complaints process followed by possible escalation to the Chief Executive.
9. Stage One of Azure’s process is an informal stage in which Azure will provide a response within 21 working days either orally or in writing.
10. If a person is dissatisfied with the Stage One response they can request a formal complaint response at Stage Two. This will require a person to put in a formal written complaint. Azure says it will respond within 21 working days in writing.
11. Should a person continue to be unhappy with the response, they can request their complaint is reviewed by the Chief Executive. Azure’s policy outlines its Chief Executive will also respond within 21 working days of receiving the complaint.
12. Azure says it will tell a person if it needs to extend its complaint timescales beyond that detailed in its policy.

What happened

13. In January 2025, Miss X contacted Azure about it charging Mr Z despite her providing notice of cancellation for the visits.
14. Azure responded in February 2025 and said:
• When a person cancels support sessions it will endeavour to accommodate requests by reallocating staff.
• When it cannot reallocate staff, it will continue to charge a person for any cancelled sessions.
• In July 2024 it was able to reallocate staff so it would withdraw this charge and credit this back to the account.
• A balance of over £2,000 remained unpaid from July 2024 and was overdue. Azure reminded Miss X payment was due within 28 days.
15. Azure credited Mr Z’s account as promised for the July 2024 charges.
16. On 24 March 2025, Miss X contacted Azure and disputed charges in February 2025 because Mr X was ill and Azure did not provide the support sessions. Azure told Miss X that cancellations were still chargeable but would escalate to a manager because this was a repeat of the concerns addressed in February 2025.
17. Miss X wrote to Azure to repeat her dispute about the February 2025 support sessions. Miss X said she provided notice two days before the first cancelled session. Azure responded to advise its policy states it will continue to charge for care even if a person requests cancellation. Miss X said Azure reallocated the staff member so Mr Z should not be charged.
18. On 25 March 2025, Azure provided four weeks notice to both Miss X and Mr Z that it was ending Mr Z’s support from 22 April 2025. Azure said this was because of a lack of respect and regard for the service it provided. Azure told Miss X and Mr Z to liaise with social services to arrange a new provider to take over Mr Z’s care. Azure told the local authority about its decision to terminate Mr Z’s service and issuing of the notice.
19. On 26 March 2025, Miss X raised a formal complaint with Azure. Miss X said:
• She disputed she had shown a lack of respect to Azure.
• She did not consider her querying an invoice was grounds to terminate Mr Z’s support.
• Care providers should not be discriminating against people who make complaints and complaints should not impact on a person’s quality of care.
• She wanted a copy of Azure’s complaints’ procedure and its contract with Mr Z.
20. Azure responded to Miss X the following day. Azure said the reason for terminating Mr Z’s support was because of Miss X’s conduct. Azure said this included repeated cancellations of services with inadequate notice and that Mr Z’s account was persistently in arrears.
21. Miss X arranged for solicitors to contact Azure on her behalf and made a formal complaint to the Chair of the Board, received on 15 April 2025. Miss X reiterated her concerns that raising concerns about an invoice was not grounds to terminate Mr Z’s support. Miss X said Azure did not reference the account arrears in its termination letter so was not the reason for Azure terminating the support and said it terminated the support because she made a complaint. Miss X reiterated her request for a copy of the complaints’ procedure and Mr Z’s contract.
22. On 9 June 2025, the Chair of the Board issued a final complaint response. Azure said the principal reason for termination of Mr Z’s support was prompted by a breakdown in communications and relationship between Azure and Miss X to the point where staff considered the situation unworkable. Since staff have advised they are no longer prepared to work with Miss X, it had no alternative than to tell the local authority to source a new provider for Mr Z.

Analysis

Decision to terminate

23. Azure’s terms and conditions outline it has the right to withdraw services at any time at its own discretion provided it gives 28 days notice and tells the local authority. Azure provided such notice to Miss X and Mr Z and told the Council accordingly. It set out that this was due to a breakdown in its relationship with Miss X and later advised this included repeated cancelling of visits and late payment of invoices. Azure has followed its process and I do not find fault.
24. Following notification by Azure to the Council, it was the Council’s responsibility to work with Miss X to source a replacement service for Mr Z. Azure continued to provide support sessions up to the end of the notice period in line with the contract and was not at fault.

Complaint handling

25. Miss X raised an informal complaint on 24 March 2025 before escalating this with two formal written complaints on 25 March 2025 and 26 March 2025.
26. Azure provided a formal complaint response on 27 March 2025. Azure acted appropriately to bypass its Stage One informal process given Miss X lodged a formal complaint shortly after making the informal complaint. Azure also acted within its complaint handling timescales and process.
27. When Miss X lodged a complaint with the Chair of the Board, this fell outside Azure’s complaint handling process. Azure responded to Miss X within a suitable timescale and I do not find fault.
28. While Azure handled this matter in line with its process and timescales, there is no evidence it provided Miss X with a copy of its complaint handling process or its contract for Mr Z’s support provision. A request for such documents by a person is reasonable meaning Azure was at fault for failing to provide these documents to Miss X.
29. Azure has explained it does not hold a contract for Mr Z and told Miss X to contact the Council for this. Azure could have provided a copy of its service user guide to Miss X detailing the grounds for termination, but there is no evidence it did. Azure has also said it posted a copy of its complaints procedure to Miss Z but has also been unable to evidence this. There is no evidence the Council provided the relevant information and documents to Miss X; this was fault.
30. This fault did not cause a significant injustice to Miss X because provision of the service user guide and complaints procedure would not have changed the outcome of this complaint. Azure also appropriately addressed Miss X’s complaint despite her not having sight of the complaint process.

Back to top

Decision

31. I have ended my investigation as the fault by the Care Provider has not led to a significant injustice to Mr Z or Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman