Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support provided to the complainant’s father. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the continence care provided to his father by the Care Provider in his own home. Mr B says the Care Provider failed to respond to the family’s concerns and care workers did not recognise the need for basic continence care. Mr B says care workers left his father in an undignified manner which left him at risk of skin integrity issues. Mr B says caused distress to the family especially his sister who is his father’s carer. Mr B wants the Care Provider to resolve the complaint by recognising a breach of contract and terminating the contract.

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:

• 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider started providing domiciliary care to Mr B’s father (Mr X) in March 2025. The support consisted of one hour weekly to support Mr X to engage him in activities and collect his lunch locally.
6. The Care Provider said after the service started family asked it to check whether Mr X had his incontinence pad in place and to assist him with putting on his support stockings. The Care Provider said the care plan did not include personal care or toileting assistance as Mr X had capacity to manage these needs. It said its role was to observe whether the pad was correctly positioned and encouraging Mr X to reposition if necessary. The Care Provider said it amended its care plan to record this approach.
7. Mr X’s family were unhappy with the service provided by the Care Provider and the said care workers had not checked Mr X’s incontinence pad. The Care Provider said it completed a care review which established that Mr X did not always consent to having the pad checked. The family remained unhappy with the response.
8. The Care Provider arranged a care review in June 2025 but said it did not complete the review. It said Mr B’s sister wanted to terminate the service and so it discussed the notice period of four weeks as well as safeguarding concerns. The Care Provider did not waive the four weeks’ notice period and charged up until 26 July.
9. Mr B’s sister reported a safeguarding concern to the local council shortly after the care review meeting. The Care Provider said it cooperated with the local council’s safeguarding enquiry. The local council provided a safeguarding outcome to the family in October 2025 whereby it said it had substantiated the concern.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. When the contract for care was terminated the outcome of the safeguarding was not known. The Care Provider decided to charge four weeks’ notice based on its view the care was adequate and appropriate. The total charge for four weeks is approximately £150. Mr B said the Care Provider apologised for the family’s experience regarding the care it provided. The Care Provider also reported the concerns to the regulator. It is unlikely we could achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr 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