Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Care Provider. This is because The Care Provider has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused, and we could not achieve anything more meaningful.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains on behalf of his grandparents, Mr and Mrs X. He says the Care Provider failed to prevent a carer from harassing them after missing an essential visit, and then falsified records to conceal it. He also says the Care Provider handled the complaint poorly and gave misleading advice. Mr Z says these failures left Mrs X terrified, caused severe fear and distress, and destroyed her trust, leaving her unable to sleep or eat. Mr Z asks for a senior‑level written apology, a significant goodwill payment, and an independent review of safeguarding and complaint‑handling procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Z says Mr X’s carer missed a scheduled evening visit. When the family raised this the next day, Mr Z said call centre staff responded aggressively and insisted the visit had taken place.
7. Later that morning, the carer arrived at the home unannounced and shouted at Mr and Mrs X, insisting the visit had happened. Mr and Mrs X felt scared and intimidated.
8. Mr Z contacted the Care Provider to complain. It said it would investigate, assign a different carer to Mr and Mrs X and assured him the carer would not return during the investigation, despite this assurance, the carer returned that afternoon and tried to enter the property, which further frightened Mr and Mrs X.
9. Mr Z contacted the Care Provider again seriously concerned about the carer’s actions and the Care Providers failure to safeguard vulnerable adults. He said the Care Provider discouraged him from contacting the police.
10. The Care Provider carried out an internal investigation. It apologised for the family’s dissatisfaction and confirmed it had removed the carer from all future visits, assigned a familiar replacement, and completed a reassurance visit that same day.
11. The Care Provider accepted that staff handled the initial phone call poorly and relied too heavily on system records. The investigation into the visit logs showed the carer’s device had been at the property, although they recognised the six-minute recorded visit was insufficient to safely complete the required tasks. It outlined steps to improve monitoring, including introducing weekly reports, providing additional scheduling support, and carrying out random quality checks.
12. The Care Provider also set out further preventive measures, including real time visit monitoring, extra staff training, improved communication, and a review of short duration visits. It apologised for the distress caused and said it hoped the family would continue to trust its service.
13. Additionally, The Care Provider has told us it has taken suitable action against the staff member concerned. Although we cannot disclose the details due to confidentiality, we are satisfied that the action taken is appropriate.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Care Provider has investigated the concerns, apologised and taken steps to address matters. We could not add to the Care Provider’s responses by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint. This is because The Care Provider has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused, and we could not achieve anything more meaningful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman