Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her father – Mr Y. She says that many of the care visits were shorter than the required time of 30 minutes. The failure to complete this meant that Mr Y missed the required care he needed and often Mrs X had to complete these tasks instead. We found the Council at fault. There were instances where some care visits did not go ahead, and others where the visits were short. In consideration of this we found the Council should apologise and make payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the care provided to her father – Mr Y by Homecarers Liverpool (HC). She says that many of HC’s visits were shorter than the required time of 30 minutes. The failure to complete this meant that Mr Y often missed out on the required care he needed and often Mrs X had to complete these tasks instead.
2. Mrs X confirms this issue caused a great deal of distress to both Mr Y and herself. She says there were instances of some care visits not going ahead at all.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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.
4. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions. Part 3A is for complaints about care bought directly from a care provider by the person who needs it or their representative, and includes care funded privately or with direct payments using a personal budget. (Part 3 and Part 3A Local Government Act 1974; section 25(6) & (7) of the Act)
5. We normally name care homes and other care providers in our decision statements. However, we will not do so if we think someone could be identified from the name of the care home or care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(8), as amended)
6. We normally expect someone to notify the Care Quality Commission about possible breaches of standards. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons to do so. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34B(8), as amended)
7. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
11. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. Also, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.
13. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
14. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened

15. In July 2024 a care assessment took place for Mr Y. A care plan was put in place of three calls each day. The visits were to last 30 minutes each call.
16. HC were appointed to provide care from July 2024.
17. Due to the concerns Mrs X had over the level of care being delivered, in February 2025 a care review took place. Following this a meeting was held between Mrs X and HC. It was agreed a further review of the care would take place in May 2025.
18. Mrs X complained that some of the visits were not taking place at all. Whereas some visits were shorter than 15 minutes. Subsequently she says that not all care tasks could be completed, and she was having to do many of the tasks assigned to HC.
19. In April 2025 HC provided its outcome into its investigation of the care issues raised by Mrs X. It also decided to end its contract to provide care. In June 2025, HC stopped providing care for Mr Y.
20. In May 2025, Mrs X raised a complaint to the Council into HC and the level of care provided. In August 2025 the Council provided its final response into the complaint.

Analysis

21. Mrs X’s complaint is about the actions of HC as the Care Provider. This investigation is a Part 3 case. In these cases, we treat the Care Provider’s actions as if they were Council actions, as explained above.
22. It is the responsibility of the Council to arrange and provide the care set out in the care plan. The plan sets out that care should be provided three times a day, with 30 minutes assigned to each call.
23. Across the almost year period that HC provided care for Mr Y, over one thousand visits took place. Mrs X has disputed 32 days of the visits up to April 2025. Some days Mrs X confirms that multiple issues occurred.
24. In its response to the complaint, HC confirms that one visit did not take place, and it agreed to refund this. In Mrs X’s evidence, she has referred to a further four visits that did not take place. I have reviewed the evidence provided by Mrs X and matched this up to the care records provided by the Council. It shows that Mrs X’s and the records from the Council broadly match. I consequently have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mrs X’s evidence.
25. I consider it fault the Council has failed to provide four visits which it was contractually obliged to provide. The fault has caused Mr Y and Mrs X injustice by causing unnecessary and avoidable distress. In that Mr Y did not receive the care he was entitled to receive, and Mrs X had to try to provide this for him.
26. I accept most of the care visits by HC took place and were of the required time. Also, that some visits went over the required 30-minute schedule. Nevertheless, this does not exempt or reduce the injustice experienced by Mr Y and Mrs X.
27. There were also a significant number of examples where the visits were less than 15 minutes in total. Some visits were also less than 10 minutes in length. Given the requirements of the care plan, it would not be possible to complete all the tasks within a short period of time. Despite requests, the Council has not provided a copy of the care records, showing the tasks completed on each visit.
28. Overall, I consider the failure to complete all tasks on some care visits to be further fault by the Council. Again, this would have caused both Mr Y and Mrs X injustice in the form of distress.
29. Our guidance on remedies states that we can make an award for undue significant stress and inconvenience. I have considered the failure to provide four visits, and that some other visits were short in length. The outcome of this was that Mrs X had to complete some care tasks assigned to the carers. This caused her significant inconvenience and distress over a year’s period. Mr Y also experienced some distress by not having his care appointments going ahead as expected. I consider the Council should apologise to Mr Y in consideration of this.
30. I have made an award to Mrs X to recognise the avoidable and unnecessary distress this issue has caused. It would be Mrs X’s decision if she decides to use this against any care charges due.
31. HC in its response to the complaint, committed to making changes to improve the way that it records care visits. I have therefore decided that no further service improvements are appropriate.

Back to top

Action

32. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of the Care Provider commissioned by the Council and make the following recommendations to the Council.
33. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to both Mr Y and Mrs X for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the failure to provide some of the care for Mr Y.
2. Pay Mrs X £300 for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the failure to provide some of the care for Mr Y.
34. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. I found the Council should apologise to both Mr Y and Mrs X and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman