Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s commissioned home care provider missed support call visit. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the care provider commissioned by the Council failed to attend a support call visit in August 2025 despite telling him it would send a care worker. Mr B says the care provider did not act on his complaints or take them seriously. He feels he needs a new care provider which can offer the care and support hours consistently. He says the Council should ensure his care and support hours are not reduced because of difficulties the care provider has.

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:

• 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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 including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B receives homecare from a care provider the Council commissioned to meet his assessed eligible needs.
6. In August 2025 the care provider contacted Mr B to tell him the care worker scheduled to visit him that day was on sick leave. The care provider said it would try to arrange a different care worker. It contacted him later the same day to say it could not send a care worker.
7. Mr B complained to the Council and said he was not happy with the way the care provider had dealt with the support call. The Council responded and said the care provider had acted reasonably to communicate with Mr B about the cancelled visit. The Council said the cancelled visit would not affect the amount Mr B contributed to his care costs. It apologised the care provider had told Mr B he would not be charged for the cancelled visit. The Council told Mr B he could talk to his allocated social worker if he had further concerns about his care.
8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The care provider missed one support call visit because the care worker was on sick leave. It did not manage to arrange a different care worker but kept in touch with Mr B to keep him aware. The Council apologised to for the inaccurate information he had been told. It is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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