Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Care Provider breaching confidentiality and its care workers not wearing uniform. This is because the injustice is not significant enough, there is another body better placed, we could not add to the previous investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Care Provider and said:
• it breached confidentiality; and
• its care workers who provide care and support to her father, Mr Y, in his home, failed to wear uniform.

Ms X said it negatively affected her father’s care. She wants the Care Provider to take disciplinary action against staff and to provide her with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider provides care and support to Mr Y in his home.
6. Ms X said on one occasion, she told the Registered Manager something confidential about a previous employee. Ms X complained that although the Register Manager said they would keep the information confidential, they decided to share it with other employees.
7. The Care Provider responded to Ms X and said it had shared the information with another employee as it was necessary for safeguarding reasons.
8. We will not investigate this matter as whether the Care Provider breached confidentiality, the injustice Ms X experienced is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Furthermore, if Ms X wants to pursue the matter further, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) would be a better body placed to consider such matters.
9. Ms X said a care worker does not consistently wear uniform when they visit her father. The Care Provider explained the care worker in question does not wear uniform due to reasonable adjustments it made for them. It accepted it should have informed Ms X of this before and apologised it had not done so. The Care Provider said going forward, it would communicate such decisions with people using the service and/or their relatives.
10. We will also not investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint. This is because the Care Provider accepted fault and explained what it would do to improve its service. It also apologised to Ms X. This was appropriate. We could not add to its investigation.
11. In any case, we cannot achieve part of the outcome Ms X wants which is for the Care Provider to take disciplinary action against staff members. We cannot recommend such actions because employment and disciplinary matters fall outside our remit.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough, there is another body better placed, we could not add to the previous investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman