Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that an employee of the care agency, who supports their neighbour, swore at them and used foul language. The Care Provider’s apology is a proportionate remedy for their injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain that their neighbour’s carer, who is employed by Ascot Care Agency (the Care Provider), swore at them. They say this caused them distress and upset and hey had to send numerous emails to the Care Provider and gather witness statements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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:

• the organisation has taken appropriate steps to remedy any injustice caused, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered comments and information from Mr and Mrs X including the Care Provider’s complaint response. I have written to Mr and Mrs X with my draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs X say that in July 2019 a carer visited their neighbour but could not gain access to the building. They say the carer became angry and swore at them when they said “hello”.
5. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Care Provider about the carer’s behaviour. They say they had to write numerous emails and collate statements from other residents who witnessed the incident.
6. Mr and Mrs X want the Care Provider to stop sending the carer to their neighbour.
7. In response to the complaint the Care Provider explained the carer had undergone specific training on the principles of customer service, reassured Mr and Mrs X that there would be no repeat of the incident and apologised. This represents an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the injustice experienced by Mr and Mrs X. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more.
8. The Ombudsman cannot recommend the Care Provider stops sending the carer to Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour. The care arrangements are a matter between the Care Provider the individual in receipt of care. Mr and Mrs X have no authority to complain on behalf of their neighbour, who according to the Care Provider has confirmed they are satisfied with the service they receive.
9. Mr and Mrs X reported the incident to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as the regulator of adult social care services. They say the CQC agreed to refer the matter as a safeguarding concern but Mr and Mrs X have not heard anything back.
10. The actions of the CQC are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. Furthermore, safeguarding information is confidential to the individual concerned so Mr and Mrs X would not be entitled to receive such information.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Care Provider has already provided an appropriate and proportionate remedy for their injustice. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X are seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman