Summary: We have found fault in the care agency’s actions. There was a lack of transparency and information when the care agency recommended an increase in Miss E’s care plan and there was fault in the care agency’s management of Miss E’s finances. This created uncertainty in how the decisions were made and how Miss E’s money was spent. The Agency has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains on behalf of his aunt, Miss E, who lacks the mental capacity to make the complaint. He complains about Home Instead Richmond care agency (the Agency) which is part of Jardine Care Ltd. Mr D says the Agency failed to provide appropriate information when decisions were made to increase the care provision and the Agency failed to appropriately manage Miss E’s finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person complaining. I have used the term fault to describe this. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C) If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Agency as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr D and the Agency had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Care Quality Commission

6. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.
7. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The CQC has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.
8. This says that:
• The provider must, as far as is reasonably practicable, ensure that service users are able to make decisions about their care or treatment (regulation 11).
• The care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users (regulation 12).
• Any complaint must be investigated and necessary and appropriate action must be taken in response to any failure identified (regulation 16).
• The provider must securely maintain accurate, complete and detailed records in respect of each person using the service. (regulation 17).
9. Regulation 9 says the care and treatment of service users must be appropriate, meet their needs and reflect their preferences.
• Providers must work in partnership with the person, make any reasonable adjustments and provide support to help them understand and make informed decisions about their care and treatment options.
• Assessments should be reviewed regularly and whenever needed throughout the person's care and treatment.
• Providers should give them relevant information and support when they need it to make sure they understand the choices available to them.
• Providers must make sure that they take into account people's capacity and ability to consent, and that either they, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf, must be involved in the planning, management and review of their care and treatment. Providers must make sure that decisions are made by those with the legal authority or responsibility to do so, but they must work within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which includes the duty to consult others such as carers, families and/or advocates where appropriate.
10. Regulation 9 also says that people using services and those lawfully acting on their behalf must be given relevant information in the most suitable way for them and in a way that they can understand. This includes information that describes:
• All possible relevant or appropriate care and treatment options.
• The risks and benefits of each option.
• The implications of not undertaking any, or only undertaking a part, of the care and treatment options.
• Costs/fees/tariffs associated with care and treatment.
• Reasonable expectations of the outcome of each care and treatment option.

Consumer rights

11. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 emphasise the importance of providing consumers with relevant information, particularly about future payments, before making a sale or entering a contract.

Mental Capacity Act 2005

12. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice 2007 are the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.
13. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity.
14. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps decision-makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.

Lasting Power of Attorney

15. A Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document, which allows people to choose one person (or several) to make decisions about their health and welfare and/or their finances and property, for when they become unable to do so for themselves.
16. There are two types of LPA.

• Property and Finance LPA – this gives the attorney(s) the power to make decisions about the person's financial and property matters, such as selling a house or managing a bank account. Unless the donor says otherwise, the attorney may make all decisions about the donor’s property and finance even when the donor still has capacity to make those decisions.
• Health and Welfare LPA – this gives the attorney(s) the power to make decisions about the person's health and personal welfare, such as day-to-day care, medical treatment, or where they should live.

17. Attorneys under an LPA have a duty to:
• Follow the Act’s statutory principles.
• Make decision in the donor’s best interests.
• Have regard to the guidance in the Code of Practice.
18. The Code of Practice notes that ‘an attorney takes on a role which carries a great deal of power, which they must use carefully and responsibly’ and attorneys ‘have a duty to apply certain standards of care and skill (duty of care) when making decisions.’

The Agency’s handling monies policy

19. This says (among other things):
• The registered manager must ensure that records of all financial transactions are kept and make these available to the CQC at inspection if required.
• All caregivers must ensure that they keep appropriate records of all financial transactions.
• All transactions should be recorded in the client's records. A note should be made of the amount of money provided and a complete list of the items of expenditure. The receipts should also be included. Records of financial transactions supported by care givers will be audited regularly.
• Caregivers must not use client bank cards on their behalf if the client is absent from the transaction (e.g. paying for goods, cash withdrawals etc.) as this would have implications on the financial protection offered to them by the bank.

What happened

20. Miss E is an older woman who has a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of the complaint, she was living at home and received care and support from the Agency.
21. In 2018 Miss E granted an LPA for property and financial affairs to her sister, Mrs F and to Mrs F’s two sons, Mr D and Mr G. The LPA granted power to make decisions ‘jointly and severally’ which meant that the attorneys could make decisions on their own or together.
22. Mrs F signed the service agreement with the Agency in October 2020. The agreement set out the terms and conditions and the hourly rates for the services. Care provided during the day was charged on an hourly rate and care during the night was charged per night shift.
23. In 2022 Miss E was receiving 3 visits a day from the Agency. On 17 July 2023 Mrs F emailed the Agency’s supervisor and said she had read on the Agency’s website that the Agency also offered live-in care and she wanted some more information relating to this. The supervisor responded and provided Mrs F with the details of the manager of its live-in care department as they were the appropriate person to discuss this with.
24. On 3 August 2023 Mrs F emailed the manager of the live-in care department and asked the live-in care manager ‘how you arrange things and an idea of the cost involved.’
25. The live-in care manager responded on the same day and said that, in terms of how things were arranged, normally he would have to come out to meet Miss E, Mrs F and anyone else involved and discuss what the daily routine was and decide what the ideal ‘Care Pro’ looked like. He said costs started from £1,505 per week and there were 3 levels of charging depending on the level of support. He provided his direct mobile number so Mrs F could discuss options with him.
26. The manager also attached a three-page information leaflet which set out what live-in care was and the costs. There were no hourly rates for live-in care, but weekly rates and there were 3 levels of weekly rates depending on the client’s needs. The lowest weekly rate was £1,505.
27. On 2 December 2023 the Agency carried out a mental capacity assessment of Miss E and assessed her as having the capacity to decide where she wanted to live.
28. The Agency proceeded to a best interest decision which Mrs F was involved in and it was decided that Miss E wanted to live at home with support from the Agency.
29. In December 2023, the Agency’s weekday hourly rate was £30 per hour. The Agency sent detailed invoices every four weeks which showed the start time and end time of the visit, the number of hours, the hourly rate and the cost of the visit.
30. The December 2023 invoice showed that Miss E received 3 visits a day, on average 1 hour in the morning, 3 hours at lunch time and 3 hours in the evening. The monthly cost was £6,659.
31. On 1 January 2024 there was an incident when Miss E left the home and got lost. The case record for that day shows that, during the 1-hour morning visit, the Agency’s worker went to the kitchen to make a cup of tea and Miss E left the house during that time. The care worker looked for Miss E in the house and then outside but could not see her. The care worker rang the office who rang the police. One of the agency workers found Miss E and brought her home.
32. The Agency increased the support to 24-hour support immediately following this incident.
33. On 10 January 2024, the Agency’s supervisor visited Miss E to carry out a review. Two of Miss E’s care workers were present. The supervisor noted there was no change in most of Miss E’s needs but there was a decline in her memory and decision making. The supervisor noted that the Agency had put in full time support as a precaution due to the safeguarding concern on 1 January 2024 when Miss E left her home unaccompanied. The supervisor said they would send the review to Mrs F for her to sign, read and return it.
34. Mrs F signed the document on 19 January 2024.
35. The January invoice showed the monthly cost had increased to £20,679.
36. Mrs F signed a new service agreement on 22 March 2024. The document referred to schedule 3 ‘initial client service schedule’ which set out the days of the week and the hours the support would start and finish but the schedule was left blank.
37. Mrs F died in March 2025. Following her death, Mr D considered moving Miss E to a care home. The Agency found out and the Agency’s supervisor emailed Mr D on 2 May 2025 and said:
• ‘… we really did want to discuss more cost-effective options with you, in a bid to enable [Miss E] to remain in her own home longer.’
• ‘had hoped to have a chat with you to discuss the possibility of live-in care for [Miss E].’
38. On 6 May 2025 the Agency’s manager sent Mr D a brochure about live-in care with a detailed spreadsheet of the monthly projected cost which was £9,577.
39. Mr D sent an email and asked:
• ‘Will she still be receiving the same level of care as she currently gets given her condition is progressive…?’
40. The manager replied on the same day and said:
• ‘Yes, [Miss E] will get the same level of care as she is receiving now and going forward as she progresses.’
41. On 7 May 2025 the manager told Mr D that they had spoken to the live-in care coordinator and the live-in care support could start as soon as mid-May.
42. Mr D replied on the same day and said he did not understand why this option was not offered sooner. Miss E had been paying £20,000 a month when she could have paid £9,577. The Agency only offered this option once Mr D started to look at alternatives.
43. Mr D terminated the contract with the Agency on 8 May 2025 and Miss E moved into a care home on 15 May 2025.
44. Mr D met with the Agency on 5 June 2025 as he questioned the Agency’s failure to inform the family earlier of the cheaper alternative option for care.
45. The Agency wrote to Mr D on 13 June 2025 following that meeting. The Agency said:
• There were five occasions where alternative arrangements were discussed with Mrs F. Mrs F enquired about live-in care on 17 July and 3 August 2023 and the live-in care manager provided information about live-in care on 3 August 2023. Mrs F also discussed care homes on 23 September 2024, 18 December 2024 and 9 and 16 February 2025.
• During the discussions in February 2025 Mrs F said she had been putting off the decision of a care home as she had her own health problems. She asked the Agency for its view and the Agency advised her that Miss E would be better at home.
• All fee changes were communicated transparently and in advance.
• The oversight of Miss E’s affairs was with the appointed attorneys.
46. Mr D sent several complaint letters which I have summarised. Mr D said:
• Miss E’s needs changed in January 2024 and the Agency should have fully re-assessed her needs and provided proposals for new care packages (domiciliary care or live-in care) that could be offered with estimated costs. There was no evidence that this had happened.
• The Agency charged Miss E for a 24/7 care package that was not necessary to meet Miss E’s needs and that cost a lot more than the alternative care package of live-in care.
• After Mrs F died, the Agency only offered the alternative of live-in care after Mr D said he was considering moving Miss E to a care home.
• The Agency managed Miss E’s daily finances but it failed to keep appropriate records regarding financial transactions it carried out on behalf of Miss E. The family was concerned that Miss E spent over £100 a week on household shopping and the Agency cannot say what the money was spent on.
• The Agency failed to have an appropriate policy in place to manage money on behalf of an adult who lacks the mental capacity to manage their finances.
• In May 2024 the Agency opened a top of the range membership at a health club (allowing peak time attendance and attendance by friends and family) for Miss E which cost £150 a month. The health club said this was only used 12 times so each swim cost Miss E £150, when she could have gone to the local swimming pool for £2.50.
• On 26 November 2023 the Agency asked Miss E to sign a document even though she lacked the mental capacity to do. The Agency asked Miss E’s friend to persuade Miss E to sign the document.
• There was an incident on 31 December 2023 when Miss E left the house and went missing while the care worker was at the home. (Note: I presume this relates to the incident on 1 January 2024.)
47. The Agency replied and said:

Complaint about the increase in the care package

• Decisions were made in line with the best interest decision that was made in December 2023 that Miss E wanted to remain living at home.
• By late December 2023 Miss E’s decision-making and personal care abilities were deteriorating markedly. She was forgetting how to go to the toilet, needed prompts for toileting and hygiene and assistance with dressing and encouragement to go to bed. On 31 December she wandered from the house for a few hours.
• A 24-hour care package was put in place with the agreement of Mrs F and the arrangement was formalised at the service review on 10 January 2024, which Mrs F signed off.
• Live-in care would not have met Miss E’s needs and only 24-hour domiciliary care met her needs. A live-in carer could only work 10 hours a day and should have a 2-hour break. In the remaining 12 hours they were at the house but were not expected to provide support.
1. For Miss E this meant:
• A live-in care worker for the day (8am – 2 pm, 4 pm – 8 pm)
• A break care worker (2 to 4 pm)
• A waking night care worker (8pm to 8 am)
2. This was not suitable for the following reasons:
• There was less flexibility in matching the right live-in care worker as there were less live-in care workers to choose from.
• Care workers had to be rotated every two weeks and Miss E wanted a few consistent care workers, not different care workers every two weeks.
• Live-in care workers were often recruited from outside the UK so they spoke with foreign accents which was a concern to Miss E.
3. In relation to the Agency’s proposal for live-in care in May 2025, the Agency said this was prepared ‘quickly in response to your request, without full input from our live-in care specialists or consultation with you.’ The proposal did not include working night support which Miss E needed and she would have needed two care workers at night and an additional break cover which would have significantly increased costs.

Complaint about the finances

51. In response to the complaint about the management of Miss E’s finances, the Agency said:
• It had Miss E’s bank card with the ‘full understanding and verbal agreement’ of Mrs F. A care worker took Miss E to choir and would do the shopping while Miss E was at her choir.
• The care worker ‘did not require and did not know the PIN’. (complaint response dated 28 July 2025)
• There was no request from Mrs F to keep receipts so the care worker did not keep receipts.
52. Mr D responded and said that he had found 37 transactions where the care worker used the PIN number so he did not accept that the care worker did not know the PIN number.
53. The Agency then said in its complaint response dated 20 August 2025:
• Care workers used Miss E’s bank card with Mrs F’s verbal consent who informed us that the PIN was kept in Miss E’s purse and could be ‘prompted when required’.

Other complaints

54. In response to the other complaints the Agency said:
• In response to the complaint about the health club membership, the Agency said this was agreed with Mrs F. Miss E had attended the health club a few times, using one of the care workers’ memberships and it was suggested that Miss E may want her own membership. Mrs F agreed this as it contributed to Miss E’s quality of life.
• The incident when Miss E left the property unattended on 31 December 2023 was the only time this happened and it was unexpected behaviour from Miss E.
• In response to the complaint about the signing of a service document on 26 November 2023, the Agency said nothing was signed on 26 November 2023. The Agency said that Miss E’s friend was present at the quality assurance review in September 2023 and signed the review.

Further information

55. The Agency provided further information in response to Mr D taking his complaint to the Ombudsman.
56. I asked the Agency how it considered the care plan and the different care options in January 2024 when it was decided to change the care plan to 24 hour care. The Agency said there were no records of discussions at the time but explained why 24-hour care rather than live-in care was more appropriate for Miss E’s needs.
57. The Agency said Mrs F was on the telephone and involved in the discussions, although there were no records of these discussions. The Agency said: ‘At the time this was not a static or predictable care package that could be costed in advance with precision, but rather a dynamic response to changing and high-risk circumstances.’ The Agency said that the review carried out on 10 January 2024 was evidence of the flexible approach.
58. I asked the Agency whether it provided any written information about the proposed costs at the time the care package was changed. The Agency said a written estimate was not provided but the Agency provided full transparency through its invoicing process. The Agency also admitted that the service agreement dated 24 March 2024 referred to a price list and schedule 3 (planned schedule of visits) which were not attached. The Agency said that this was ‘an administrative omission.’
59. The Agency said its ‘Handling Clients’ Money’ policy required that all transactions should be recorded, expenditure should be transparent and not carry out cash withdrawals unless explicitly authorised and risk assessed.
60. However, the Agency said:
• ‘In practice, Home Instead does not operate a rigid one-size-fits-all procedure for day-to-day expenditure for clients who lack capacity. Instead, financial support arrangements are individualised and agreed with the client’s authorised representative … This reflects both the variability in clients’ needs and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act to tailor decisions to the individual.’
61. In terms of the complaint relating to 26 November 2023, I have read the records for that day but there was no evidence that a review took place or that any documents were signed so I have not been able to further investigate this complaint.

Analysis

62. There was fault in the way the Agency assessed Miss E’s needs to decide the new care plan for Miss E and in the information it provided to Mrs F to make the decisions regarding the changes in the care plan. I will list my concerns.
63. The Agency’s mental capacity assessment of December 2023 was confusing as the conclusion was that Miss E had the capacity to make the decision but then the Agency proceeded to make a best interest decision on her behalf anyway. If a person has mental capacity to make decisions, then a best decision cannot be made so it is not clear what the Agency tried to achieve.
64. However, I do accept that Miss E had said, at the meeting, that she wanted to remain at home as long as possible, rather than move to a care home.
65. I accept that the initial decision to increase the support to 24 hours support was done in an emergency as Miss E had gone missing on 1 January 2024. I presume Miss E needed someone to stay with her in the immediate aftermath of this stressful event and I accept this may have continued for a few days.
66. However, on 10 January 2024 a decision was made to permanently change the care plan from 3 visits a day to 24-hour care.
67. I would have expected the Agency to take the following actions before it made a recommendation to change the care plan so drastically:
• It should have carried out a full re-assessment of Miss E’s needs and her care plan. The assessment and care plan should have considered the different options available to Miss E which could meet her needs.
• If it was the Agency’s position that live-in care could not meet Miss E’s needs, it should have explained how it came to this conclusion based on the assessment of Miss E’s needs.
• It should have invited Mrs F to the review on 10 January.
• It should have informed Mrs F of the different options in writing.
• It should have given Mrs F an estimate cost of what the possible care packages would be, even it could not provide a perfect estimate.
68. There was no documentary evidence that this was properly done or that Mrs F was provided with the full information that the Agency should have provided and this was fault.
69. I am particularly concerned about the review on 10 January 2024. I have read the review document and it consisted of one sentence to explain the drastic change in the care plan (the fact that Mrs F left the house unaccompanied on 1 January 2024). Mrs F was not present at the review but was asked to sign the document after the event. That was not sufficient and was not in line with the Agency’s duties of transparency and involvement of the service user and their representative.
70. I do note, however, that, even though the Agency did not provide a cost estimate of the proposed new care package of 24/7 care on 10 January 2024, when it asked Mrs F to agree to the changes in the care package, the Agency sent a detailed invoice to Mrs F on 1 February 2024 and every month thereafter. I note that this invoice clearly included the hourly rate for the day care and the nightly rate for the night-time care and the total, so Mrs F received that information which was clear.
71. I am also concerned about the Agency’s offer of live-care for Miss E after Mrs F died. It certainly suggested that Miss E’s needs could have been met by live-in care at the time. The Agency then tried to retract this offer and said it had been made too quickly and without properly considering Miss E’s needs. That may be the case but either way it showed that the Agency failed to properly consider Miss E’s needs, and whether live-in care could meet the needs, both in January 2024 and in May 2025.
72. I also find fault in the way the Agency managed Miss E’s finances. The Agency’s own policy, which is in line with the Mental Capacity Act and the regulations says that the care worker should keep a record of every financial transaction, should keep a receipt of the transaction and should never obtain the PIN number or use the bank card without the person present. These records should be regularly audited.
73. None of this happened in Miss E’s case. There were no records, no receipts, no evidence of any audit. To make matters worse, the care worker had access to the PIN number and used the card and the PIN number while Miss E was at her choir. This was fault.
74. I do not accept the Agency’s justification for its actions by saying that Mrs F did not ask for the written records, so therefore the Agency did not have to provide them. And I am concerned by the Agency’s attempt at justifying its actions in its response to the Ombudsman by saying that it ‘does not operate a rigid one-size-fits-all procedure for day-to-day expenditure for clients who lack capacity’.
75. The Agency did not follow its own policy in this case and that was fault. If a care worker can ignore a policy, then there seems to be little point in having a policy.
76. If the Agency wanted to build any flexibility in the policy, it should have noted so in the policy. The policy does not allow for flexibility, as far as I can see. And there should have been, at a minimum, a written agreement to explain what the procedure was in Miss E’s case which should have been signed by Mrs F. None of this was in place.
77. The importance of following the policy and the relevant legislation and guidance cannot be overstated. Policies, legislation and guidance are there not only to protect the adult without mental capacity but also the care worker. By not following the policy, the Agency has left the Agency and its care workers open to allegations of theft and financial abuse.
78. I am also concerned by the Agency’s complaint responses to these allegations. The Agency initially denied that the staff had access to the PIN number in its complaint response dated 28 July 2025 but then admitted that staff had used the PIN number in its complaint response dated 20 August 2025 after Mr D provided evidence that the PIN number was used.
79. Mr D has also complained about the subscription to the health club as he says this was hardly ever used by Miss E and therefore was unnecessary. It was Mrs F’s decision to start the membership and I agree that, with hindsight, the membership was hardly used. However, I cannot say whether there was fault in the Agency’s actions. It may have been good practice for the Agency to remind Mrs F that the membership was still running and Miss E was not using it, but I cannot say there was real fault here.
80. Mr D has also complained about the incident which happened on 1 January 2024 when Miss E went missing. He says this showed that there were concerns about the care provided. I agree that, on that particular day there was an incident when Miss E left the home unsupervised but this was not evidence that the care overall was poor.

Injustice

81. When the Ombudsman finds fault, we also consider what injustice the fault caused and whether this injustice can be remedied.
82. Mr D says that if the Agency had offered the option of live-in care to Miss E in January 2024 Mrs F would have chosen this option and the cost would have been lower.
83. Firstly, I cannot say whether live-in care would have met Miss E’s needs. The Ombudsman cannot assess a person’s needs or say what their care package should be or should have been in the past.
84. Secondly, it was not the Agency who made decisions on behalf of Miss E. Mrs F and the other attorneys were the only people who had the power and the duty to make best interest decisions on Miss E’s behalf, both in finance and in care options. Mrs F made the decision to allow 24/7 care to continue. Mrs F was aware of the option of live-in care as she had read about it on the Agency’s website. She had contacted the manager of the live-in care department and had received an estimate of costs and a three-page leaflet in August 2023.
85. And, although I have found fault in the Agency’s failure to provide a cost estimate for the 24-hour care package that was put in place in January 2024, I agree with the Agency that its invoices were always clear. Mrs F received an invoice in February 2024 and every month thereafter which showed exactly how many hours care were provided and what the hourly rate and the total cost was. So after receiving the first invoice in February 2024 Mrs F knew what the monthly cost was and knew that this was higher than the live-in care option.
86. I do not know why Mrs F chose not to pursue live-in care for Mrs F after January 2024, but she was the attorney with the duty and the power to make best interest decisions for Miss E. I am of the view that, although the information provided by the Agency to Mrs F in January 2024 was poor and there was fault, nevertheless there was enough information available to Mrs F to make a different decision and to pursue live-in care as an option for Miss E if she had wanted to do so.
87. Therefore, the injustice is limited and is mostly the uncertainty of whether Mrs F’s decision would have been different if the Agency had provided more information in January 2024.
88. In terms of the Agency’s failure to keep any records or any oversight on managing Miss E’s finances, I agree with Mr D that the weekly spend for Miss E is high for a person living on their own. However, there is no evidence that the Agency misused Miss E’s finances. It is not possible to say what the money was spent on as there are no records regarding the expenditure. So, the injustice is the uncertainty of not knowing how Ms E’s money was spent.
89. In a complaint such as this one, where the Ombudsman cannot say that there is a direct financial loss caused by the fault, but we accept that the fault caused distress through uncertainty, we can sometimes recommend a small symbolic financial penalty to reflect this. I recommend the Agency pays £500 to Miss E.
90. I also recommend the Agency ensures that all relevant staff follow and understand the Agency’s handling monies policy and the staff’s duties towards people who lack mental capacity to manage their finances. The Agency will provide training or guidance as needed.
91. I also recommend the Agency ensures that all relevant staff follow and understand the Agency’s duties when reviewing or changing a client’s care plan. The Agency will provide training or guidance as needed.
92. The Ombudsman is not an audit or regulation body, but we can share our decisions with the CQC who are the regulatory body for care providers. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the CQC which is the organisation best placed to review the Agency and its practices.

Back to top

Action

93. The Agency has agreed the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Miss E and Mr D for the fault I have identified.
• Pay Miss E £500.
• Ensure that all relevant staff follow and understand the Agency’s handling monies policy and the staff’s duties towards people who lack mental capacity to manage their finances. The Agency will provide training or guidance as needed.
• Ensure that all relevant staff follow and understand the Agency’s duties when reviewing or changing a client’s care plan. The Agency will provide training or guidance as needed.
94. The Agency should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

95. I have completed my investigation and have found that the Agency’s actions have caused an injustice. The Agency has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman