Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to a wardrobe, care calls being cut short and quality of care. Complaints about damage to property are for the courts. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the quality of care complaints. The Council has agreed to take action in relation to the complaint about care calls being cut short.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about Council-commissioned care providers. Mrs X said the care providers:
• caused damage to Mr Y’s wardrobe, initially accepting fault but then withdrawing an agreed payment;
• did not carry out full visits as agreed and paid for;
• made threats towards Mr Y; and
• left slide sheets in Mr Y’s bed, left lights and televisions on and left doors open.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused both her and Mr Y distress, and said she had gone to significant inconvenience in complaining and in chasing the matter. She wanted the care providers to honour the agreed payment for damage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Mrs X’s complaint about damage to a wardrobe

8. Mrs X’s complaint to us includes an allegation a care provider caused damage to Mr Y’s wardrobe, then agreed to pay for the damage but withdrew this offer.
9. Complaints about damage to property are not normally a matter we will investigate. This is because such complaints are really negligence claims, which the courts are best placed to handle should parties be unable to reach agreement.
10. Lodging a claim in the small claims court is a relatively straightforward process, for which people do not normally need legal representation. The associated fees are on a sliding scale relative to the amount claimed, and it is open to the applicant to seek a costs order. Some people are eligible to pay no fee.
11. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use the small claims process, given the above. There is not a good reason for us to consider this part of the complaint instead, and so we will not investigate it.

Mrs X’s complaint about quality of care

12. Mrs X’s complaint to us included alleged threats to Mr Y by a care provider. I have not seen evidence that she told the Council specifically about threats made to
    Mr Y, although she complained to it about carers’ attitudes, including having been impatient with Mr Y. This matter was not addressed in the Council’s complaint response, and if we investigated the matter we would likely find fault in this respect.
13. However, we will not investigate the complaint about the carer’s actions themselves. This is because it is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault given this allegation relates to verbal conversations.
14. It is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter. There was also not a significant injustice caused by the Council’s omission of this part of the complaint, so it would not be proportionate to investigate this further.
15. Mrs X’s complaint also included slide sheets being left in Mr Y’s bed, lights and televisions being left on and doors being left unlocked. The Council partially upheld this part of the complaint, as it accepted these incidents had occurred. It apologised, and explained issues had been addressed by care providers when they had been raised, and a carer who had made a mistake would receive further training and supervision.
16. If we investigated this, it is unlikely we would find a significant injustice had been caused that would warrant further remedies in addition to those already provided through the Council’s internal complaints process. We will not investigate these complaints.

Mrs X’s complaint about care calls allegedly being cut short

17. Mrs X’s complaint to us included an allegation care providers did not stay for full visits. She says she has CCTV evidence which shows some visits were as short as eight minutes. The Council said in its complaint response it had reviewed care logs provided by the care providers, and while some calls were shorter than agreed, others were longer. It did not uphold this complaint.
18. I asked the Council for evidence of the review it carried out. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find fault by the Council causing injustice. This is because the Council reviewed an 11-day sample of care call logs, which were dated after Mrs X had already brought her formal complaint to the Council. While the evidence I have seen shows the Council experienced difficulties obtaining the records it required from the care providers, the Council commissioned the care and so it is our Body in Jurisdiction. This means it is ultimately responsible for the actions of the care providers.
19. It is likely this has caused uncertainty about whether care calls were completed as agreed prior to Mrs X’s complaint to the Council, and Mr Y may have missed out on care he has been charged for.
20. I asked the Council to consider providing a remedy for this part of the complaint at this early stage of our process. It has agreed to carry out a further review of the care call logs, for an earlier period and covering a wider range of dates. It will then communicate a further decision to Mrs X regarding its findings and any refund due, if applicable. I have not prescribed the exact scope of the review, as this is for the Council to determine.
21. The Council will take this action within three months of this decision. Given this, it is not proportionate for us to investigate the matter, and I am satisfied with the action the Council intends to take. Should Mrs X be dissatisfied about the subsequent decision following the Council’s further review, it is open to her to make a new complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because part of it is best considered by the courts, there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice in relation to another part, and the Council has agreed to take suitable action at this early stage to remedy part of the complaint we may otherwise have investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman