Summary: Miss Y complained on behalf of her relative, Ms X, that the Council failed to safeguard Ms X from neglect by her care provider. She said carers did not always stay for the full visit time, did not complete tasks and Ms X did not always have adequate food. Miss Y also said the Council suggested she had a conflict of interest when acting as Ms X’s advocate and did not properly investigate her concerns. We found there is no significant injustice caused by any fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained on behalf of her relative, Ms X, about the way the Council responded to concerns about Ms X’s care and support. Ms X is an adult with learning disabilities who receives a care package arranged by the Council.
2. Miss Y said the Council failed to safeguard Ms X from neglect by her care provider. She said carers did not stay for the full visit time, did not complete cleaning tasks and Ms X did not always have adequate food. Miss Y also said the Council treated her as having a conflict of interest when she acted as Ms X’s advocate and did not properly investigate her concerns.
3. Miss Y said these matters caused distress to both her and Ms X. She wanted the Council to investigate the concerns, ensure Ms X received appropriate support and waive charges for care that had not been delivered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss Y and the Council 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 guidance and legislation

Safeguarding

10. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

11. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)

What happened

12. Ms X received a care package commissioned by the Council and delivered by a care provider. The Council said the care package had a weekly cost of around £712 and Ms X paid an assessed weekly contribution towards the cost of the service.
13. Miss Y raised several concerns with the Council about the quality of care Ms X received. These included concerns carers did not always stay for the full visit time and did not complete tasks such as cleaning.
14. The Council discussed these concerns with the care provider and obtained records of care visits. The care provider supplied care logs recording visits and tasks undertaken.
15. The Council also held meetings with Ms X, Miss Y and the care provider to discuss the concerns raised. The Council said disagreements sometimes arose where carers reported offering support which Ms X declined, while Ms X later reported the carers had not stayed or completed the work.
16. Miss Y also raised safeguarding concerns with the Council.
17. The Council considered these concerns and decided an altercation involving a carer and another relative did not meet the safeguarding threshold because the relative involved did not have care and support needs. The Council also considered concerns about cleaning duties and assessed these as a provider quality matter rather than safeguarding. The Council said it raised these concerns with the care provider.
18. Records show the Council also reviewed Ms X’s care arrangements and changed carers when concerns were raised.
19. During a visit in November 2024, a social worker recorded Ms X had a savings account with a balance above the threshold for funding and noted this meant she would be a self-funder. However, the Council later confirmed Ms X’s care continued to be commissioned by the Council and Ms X paid only a weekly contribution towards the cost of the package.
20. Miss Y also complained the Council suggested she had a conflict of interest because of her profession when she acted as Ms X’s advocate.
21. The Council said wording in an earlier assessment referring to a possible conflict of interest was unclear and did not apply to Miss Y. The Council said it removed this wording from the updated assessment. Records show Miss Y continued to be involved in meetings and communication with the Council about Ms X’s care.
22. Miss Y remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025.

Analysis and findings

23. Miss Y said the Council failed to safeguard Ms X from neglect by her care provider.
24. The evidence shows the Council considered the safeguarding concerns raised. It decided the incident involving another relative did not meet the safeguarding threshold and that concerns about cleaning duties were more appropriately addressed through the care provider rather than a safeguarding enquiry.
25. The Ombudsman does not question a council’s professional judgement simply because someone disagrees with the outcome. We must consider whether the Council considered the relevant information and reached a decision it was entitled to make. The evidence shows the Council considered the concerns and made a decision about whether the safeguarding threshold was met. There is no fault in how the Council considered the safeguarding concerns, so we cannot question the outcome.
26. Miss Y also said carers often stayed only a short time and did not complete tasks such as cleaning.
27. The Council discussed these concerns with the care provider and obtained care records showing visits recorded and tasks undertaken. The Council also held meetings with Ms X and Miss Y and changed carers when concerns were raised.
28. There is a clear dispute between Miss Y’s account and the provider’s records about what happened during individual visits. We look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened on the balance of probabilities. The evidence indicates the Council considered the concerns raised and took reasonable steps to address them. So, there is no fault found in the Council’s actions on this point.
29. Miss Y raised concerns about finances and said Ms X should not be charged for care that had not been delivered. She also raised concerns about records suggesting Ms X was a self-funder.
30. The Council obtained and considered care records from the provider when responding to Miss Y’s concerns about missed or shortened visits. While there is a dispute between Miss Y’s account and the provider’s records, I have not seen evidence the Council accepted care had not been delivered but still charged for it, or that Ms X was incorrectly charged as a result. Records from November 2024 refer to Ms X potentially being a self-funder due to the level of her savings. However, the Council confirmed Ms X’s care continued to be commissioned by the Council and she paid only a weekly assessed contribution. There is no evidence the Council treated Ms X as a self-funder in practice or that she suffered any financial disadvantage. Ms X’s contribution was based on an assessment of what she could afford to pay, rather than the amount of care she received, and was significantly less than the actual cost of her care. Even if there had been a reduction in Ms X’s care hours it is unlikely this would have affected her assessed contribution. Therefore, there is no fault causing injustice on this point.
31. Miss Y also said the Council attempted to exclude her from acting as Ms X’s advocate because of a conflict of interest.
32. The Council accepted wording in an earlier assessment referring to a possible conflict of interest was unclear and said it removed this wording from the updated assessment. The records show Miss Y continued to be involved in meetings and communication with the Council about Ms X’s care. There is fault in the Council’s poor communication with Miss Y but there is no evidence the Council prevented Miss Y from acting as Ms X’s representative. There is no significant injustice caused to Miss Y or Ms X as a result of the fault.
33. The evidence shows the Council considered the concerns raised by Miss Y, discussed them with the care provider, reviewed Ms X’s care arrangements and took steps such as changing carers when concerns were raised. I have not seen evidence the Council failed to consider the concerns raised or acted unreasonably in how it responded to them.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman