Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a breakdown in her care after a support worker left at short notice. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome to that already achieved via the complaint to the agency on the Council’s behalf.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there was a breakdown in her care when a support worker took extended leave at short notice. She says she was alone when the agency providing care told her about this, and she became confused and lost her way after alighting from a bus. She says the person who spoke to her on the phone was aggressive. She says her medication was collected late from a pharmacy as a result of the worker leaving, and she was left without it when going on holiday. She says she was unable to speak to anyone despite phoning several times. She said the worker had taken a set of her house keys and she had to complain to the agency to get them back, with it initially denying having them. She also says the agency made comments when trying to find a suitable replacement that were homophobic, and that the person it sent was unsuitable.
2. Ms X says she waited for three months for a meeting to resume her care, then the agency stated it could no longer meet her needs when she complained, leaving her without care at Christmas.
3. Ms X says the agency should not work with vulnerable adults.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
 

5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X received care from the Council, provided through an agency. The care was mostly provider by a single worker, though there was another worker who provided some care. The matters in the complaint came about because the usual worker took an extended period of leave at short notice.
9. In its response to Ms X’s complaint, it accepted the news of the worker’s departure was distressing to Ms X, and that the circumstances in which she was told made that the more so. However, because the worker was unavailable at short notice and Ms X was due to receive services, the agency would have had little alternative at that point. It would not be possible for us to establish what was said and with what tone during the phone call, which was made about a year ago.
10. Even so, the agency accepted it should not have allowed most of Ms X’s care to be provided by a single worker, as this had created the situation, as well as leading to delay in fetching her medication from a pharmacy. It also accepted Ms X needed a telephone number she could call, as she had been unable to speak to anyone. It provided her with one in its response to her complaint.
11. The matter of alleged homophobic comments relates to the agency’s attempt to find a suitable replacement for the absent worker. The agency’s explanation of its choice by referencing sexual orientation upset Ms X, but investigation by us would be unlikely to find fault in its attempt to offer a suitable choice. Nonetheless, the agency accepted that better record keeping would have been likely to alert staff to the reason why the person sent to Ms X’s home with a worker who sometimes provided care for her would be likely to be unsuitable, regardless of any issue of sexual orientation.
12. Ms X also said the worker who left had not returned her keys. However, I note she confirmed the keys were later returned after she complained.
13. Overall, it is clear the agency providing care on the Council’s behalf allowed a situation to develop where the absence of one worker would be likely to cause a breakdown in care. However, the agency recognised this, apologised to Ms X several times in its response letter, and stated what it would do differently to prevent a repeat. Were we to investigate, we would be unlikely to recommend more than that, and we do not have the power to recommend the termination of the agency’s right to work with vulnerable adults.
14. I have seen no evidence that the alleged matter of waiting three months for meeting to discuss care formed part of Ms X’s complaint to the agency or the Council, or that the Council has had the opportunity to consider a complaint about the agency ceasing to provide care.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome from that already achieved via Ms X’s complaint to the agency.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman