Summary: The Council was not at fault in charging for a “Peace of Mind” service that Mrs X and Mrs Y chose (on their parents’ behalf) not to use.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Mrs Y complained the Council levied a charge for a “Peace of Mind” service provided by the extra care scheme in which their parents (Mr and Mrs Z) lived. The Council used the charge to fund a Care Provider whose services the family did not wish to use.
2. Mrs X and Mrs Y say they and their parents suffered the injustice of paying for a service offered by a Care Provider they had no confidence in. By way of remedy, they want the Council to waive the charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
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. (Part 3 and Part 3A Local Government Act 1974; section 25(6) & (7) of the Act)
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
9. The amount of information provided by Mrs X, Mrs Y and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but have focused on the key issues that form the complaint.
10. When they moved into the extra care scheme, the family paid the on-site care and support team (the Care Provider) to provide daily domiciliary care to Mr and Mrs Z. Mrs X and Mrs Y complained about breaches of confidentiality by the Care Provider and a lack of empathy, professionalism, and training. They also complained the Care Provider did not contact them or call an ambulance when Mrs Z become unwell, and was not available to provide care on her arrival home from hospital.
11. In their approach to the Ombudsman, Mrs X and Mrs Y included their complaints about the quality of care given to their parents by the Care Provider. These matters are not directly relevant to the provision of the standalone “Peace of Mind” service. We cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating these complaints, and so I have not done so. I have investigated matters from May 2024 onwards, when the family was paying for the “Peace of Mind” service alone.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I spoke to Mrs X and Mrs Y and considered evidence provided by them and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mrs X, Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

14. The Council arranged for Mrs X and Mrs Y’s parents, Mr and Mrs Z, to move into an extra care housing scheme in March 2024.
15. The tenancy agreement for the extra care housing scheme included a payment for a “Peace of Mind” service delivered by the Care Provider. The agreement said the “Peace of Mind” service included “assistance in cases of emergency provided by the on-site care and support team together with an emergency 24-hour call system”. The service did not include in-person care visits.
16. Initially, the family also paid for the Care Provider to deliver domiciliary care services to Mr and Mrs Z. Due to the issues outlined in paragraph 9, Mrs X and Mrs Y cancelled the care contract with the Care Provider in late April 2024. They made alternative arrangements for Mr and Mrs Z’s domiciliary care. They continued to pay for the “Peace of Mind” service.
17. Mrs Z had an “assisted fall” in May 2024 with her private carers in attendance. As Mr and Mrs Z were paying for the “Peace of Mind” service as part of their tenancy, Mrs Z activated the personal alarm. The Care Provider attended but said they could not assist as Mrs Z’s own carers were present. This incident prompted Mrs X and Mrs Y to make a private arrangement with a different provider of personal alarm services.
18. Mrs X and Mrs Y complained to the Council that the Care Provider had refused to enter Mr and Mrs Z’s apartment. The Council replied that the Care Provider would not enter Mr and Mrs Z’s home as they were no longer paid to provide care and were responding as part of the “Peace of Mind” service. It said that, although the “Peace of Mind” service remained in place, the Care Provider would not be able to attend if another care team was on site and dealing with the issue.
19. When Mrs X and Mrs Y escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure, the Council responded that “Whilst the Care Provider will still be on site and available should an emergency occur; they would not come to your mother if your mother’s care agency was in attendance as they would manage [her] needs”.
20. Mrs X and Mrs Y were dissatisfied with the “Peace of Mind” service provided by the Care Provider and no longer wished to use it. They asked the Council to cancel the charge for it. The Council responded that the “Peace of Mind” charge was a required element for everyone living in extra care accommodation within the county. The Council said it was not possible to opt out of the service.
21. Mrs X and Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman that they would have been happy to pay for the “Peace of Mind” service if it was delivered by a care provider they had confidence in, but that was not the case with Council-commissioned Care Provider.

Analysis

22. Mrs X and Mrs Y were dissatisfied with the Care Provider’s response to Mrs Z activating her personal alarm in May 2024. The Council’s explanation was that the Care Provider could not assist if Mr and Mrs Z’s private carers were in attendance. This approach maintained clear lines of professional accountability, and so I find the Care Provider and the Council were not at fault.
23. Following this incident, Mrs X and Mrs Y decided they did not wish to use the “Peace of Mind” service and exercised their right to pay for an alternative personal alarm. I find no fault with the Council’s decision to continue to levy a “Peace of Mind” charge. While some residents may choose not to use the service, it was included in the tenancy agreement as a required element of the extra care scheme. It remains available to all residents should they have an emergency.

Back to top

Decision

24. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman