Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provision. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X is unhappy with the care she received from two care providers. Ms X complains the Council did not properly investigate her complaint about care she received.
2. Her complaints about the first care provider are about:

• Inappropriate sharing of information
• Support not being delivered as requested
• Fire safety concerns.

3. Her complaints about the second care provider are about:

• Lack of continuity of care
• Carers not following patient specific guidelines and not having adequate understanding of her needs
• Incidents where she says carers’ behaviour was inappropriate.

Mrs X says this caused distress and she did not feel consistently listened to, supported or safe.

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.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s complaint response explained Care Provider One shared information for legitimate reasons. The Care Provider also assured the Council that it continues to remind staff of the importance of maintaining clear boundaries. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council also explained Care Provider One’s role was limited to welfare checks and providing access to a lifeline service. There was no formal care contract with it so it was limited in its ability to respond to personal requests. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything further.
10. The Council explained the responsibility for fire safety rests with Ms X’s landlord. The Council passed Ms X’s concerns to her landlord. As the care provider was not responsible for fire safety and the Council signposted Ms X correctly, it is unlikely that investigation will find fault.
11. Care Provider Two acknowledged continuity of care was affected by a range of factors. The Care Provider ended its contract with Ms X due to ongoing difficulties in safely and reliably staffing the package.
12. Care Provider Two advised that all carers had completed training on Ms X’s area of need. It stated Ms X’s support plan was agreed with her and reviewed, with support tasks varying week by week.
13. Care Provider Two provided detailed accounts of the incidents where Ms X says carers’ behaviour was inappropriate. It provided a valid explanation for one incident and a different account of another. We are unlikely to find evidence to establish what happened during the incidents and whether there was fault. As we are unlikely to find evidence of fault, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
14. The Council acknowledged Care Provider Two’s lack of continuity of care was fault. It apologised for the impact it had on Ms X and provided feedback to the Care Provider. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy. A new Care Provider is now in place. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything further and would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman