Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. A care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged carers entered Mr X’s home earlier than scheduled and explained the action it had taken to prevent a recurrence. This represents an adequate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains carers from a home care agency, acting on behalf of the Council, attended his home at a time earlier than scheduled in his agreed care plan. He also complains male carers attended, when his documented preference was for female carers.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or

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 information provided by Mr X alongside information the Council and care provider. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document. All comments made have been considered.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X receives domiciliary care services provided by a care agency on behalf of the Council.
6. On 25 February 2025, two male care workers arrived at Mr X’s home without warning and much earlier than scheduled and agreed in the care plan. The care workers let themselves in using a key from a key safe. Care workers were permitted to use the key safe, but Mr X was not expecting carers to arrive unannounced three hours before the scheduled time. Mr X says he was in bed when the carers arrived and he was frightened by their sudden appearance in his bedroom.
7. Mr X asked the carers why they had arrived so early. They explained they had back-to-back visits and thought they would attend early. Mr X asked them to leave and return at the agreed time of 11am.
8. Mr X had expressed a preference for female carers and was dissatisfied that male carers attended.
9. Mr X says the carers entered his home illegally causing him stress and fear. He is dissatisfied that his care plan was not followed and feels his preferences and agreed arrangements were not respected.
10. Mr X submitted a written complaint to the care agency on 8 July 2025. The care agency visited Mr X on 11 July 2025 to discuss his complaint and agreed to investigate the matter further.
11. The care agency subsequently wrote to Mr X outlining the findings of its investigation. It acknowledged carers had arrived too early and that this must have been intrusive and unsettling for Mr X. It said it had addressed this with the carers involved and reinforced the importance of adhering to scheduled times, unless there was a specific reason or an emergency, and only then with appropriate communication.
12. Whilst the care agency acknowledged carers arrived much earlier than scheduled it did not agree they had entered Mr X’s home illegally saying carers access to the keysafe was previously agreed as an approved way to access Mr X’s home.
13. Mr X is dissatisfied with the care agency’s response. He believes he should receive compensation for his distress and the relevant care workers dismissed.

Analysis

14. Whilst Mr X’s preferences were not adhered to, there is no evidence to suggest the care workers acted unlawfully. The care provider acknowledged the shortcomings and explained the action it had taken to prevent a recurrence. I consider this to be a proportionate satisfactory remedy particularly as this appears to have been an isolated one-off incident rather than a recurring issue.
15. Whilst Mr X expressed a preference for female carers, the care provider informed Mr X at the initial assessment that this would be subject to staff availability and could not be guaranteed. Mr X agreed, that in such circumstances male carers could attend to ensure continuity of service.

Back to top

Final Decision

16. The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. A care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged carers entered Mr X’s home earlier than scheduled and explained the action it had taken to prevent a recurrence. This represents an adequate remedy for the injustice caused.
17. It is on this basis the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman