Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation a care provider arranged by the Council made against Mrs B. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about an allegation a care provider arranged by the Council made against her. Mrs B says she made a passing comment which the carer took offence to. She says this resulted in the carer making a serious allegation about her which is not true. Mrs B says because of this she now receives care from a different care provider, and her care costs are more expensive. As an outcome Mrs B wants the carer who made the allegation to be disciplined.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant including the care provider’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs B received care and support from a domiciliary care provider (Provider X) which was arranged by the Council. Mrs B care and support included a carer visiting her at home to provide companionship.
6. Mrs B said during one visit she made a comment to the carer who visited her regularly. She also said there was a misunderstanding about face masks the carer had offered to give her. Mrs B said following this visit Provider X told the Council it was withdrawing from providing support to Mrs B as she had refused to accept support from two carers instead of her usual one.
7. When Provider X responded to Mrs B’s complaint it explained it had withdrawn from the care provision because of allegations Mrs B had made about a carer and changes in her behaviour. It said due to the safeguarding concern it had offered to provide two different carers per visit but Mrs B had refused the offer. Provider X accepted its communication with Mrs B had been poor. It apologised to Mrs B for the way its poor communication would have impacted negatively on her mental health. It said it had reminded its staff about the importance of clear and timely communication with clients.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Provider X accepted it had not communicated properly with Mrs B and apologised. We cannot add to the previous investigation or achieve the outcome Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman