Summary: Mr C complained his wife did not receive a financial remedy when he complained she had to stay with her mother for three days because the care provider, commissioned by the Council, stopped her care support with immediate effect. We upheld Mr C’s complained, following which the Council agreed to provide the financial remedy we recommended for Mrs C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complained to us on behalf of his mother-in-law, whom I shall call Mrs M. Mrs M received care support from a care provider commissioned by the Council. Mr C complained the care provider should not have stopped Mrs M’s care support in April 2021 with immediate effect. He said that, as a result, his wife had to stay with her mother for three days.
2. Mr C told me that while he has accepted the financial remedy for, and to be paid to, Mrs M, the care provider did not offer a financial remedy to his wife to remedy her injustice. Mr F says the Council should pay his wife an hourly rate for all the time she had to stay there (72 hours), at £14.28.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. If they have caused an injustice we may suggest a remedy (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34 B, 34C and 34 H(3 and 4) as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
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, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information I received from Mr C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement wit Mr C and the Council and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs M has dementia and was living in extra care accommodation, where she had her own apartment and received five visits a day from the care provider. She also had an alarm on her door to tell staff at the scheme when she was wandering off, and a pull cord and a wrist band in case she would fall.
8. The care provider decided in April 2021 that none of its care workers were allowed to enter Mrs M’s apartment anymore due to reported Health and Safety concerns due to flooding. This meant that Mrs M remained in the apartment, but without the care support she needed. The Council was unable to arrange alternative emergency accommodation for Mrs M at such short notice.
9. As such, Mr F says his wife had no other choice than to stay with her mother for three days and nights. He said that, even though Mrs M only received five hours of support per day, the care provider had been very clear that no care workers would go into the property no matter what, as this would not be covered by its insurance policy. As such, he said:
• His wife had to be there in case her mother would fall as staff would not respond to her pulling the cord or her wristband going off.
• Staff would not respond if Mrs M would use her call/emergency bell.
• Mrs M would sometimes wake up at night and wander off. Staff would not come and assist her back into bed.
• The family felt that a vulnerable person was being left extremely vulnerable by the uncompromising stance and attitude of the care provider and as such felt they had no choice than to ensure she would be safe until a solution had been found.
10. When Mr C made a complaint, the care provider said it was very sorry and immediately acknowledged: “there has been a serious and significant service failure by us regarding the care of Mrs M. This put her at risk of harm in a way that could, and should, have been avoided and prevented”. It said that:
• It should not have withdrawn Mrs M’s care with immediate effect, as this was not in line with its care contract. The care provider said it should have given four-weeks’ notice.
• It should have carried out an on-going risk assessment after it withdrew the care for three days, as it put a vulnerable resident at increased risk.
11. The care was reinstated after three days. However, as a result of the events, the family decided to move Mrs M to another extra care scheme.
12. The care provider said that, as a result:
• It took actions in relation to the staff involved, to prevent an incident like this occurring in the future to any other resident. There is a new manager in place now.
• It said that, in recognition of the service failings, it would ‘waive’ the total rent charges that are due under the three-month notice period; an amount of £1,400. It would also pay £150 to Mrs M for the distress and inconvenience caused.
13. In response to my enquiries, the Council has now offered to pay Mrs C £200.

Analysis

14. I found it was reasonable for the family to assume that it would be likely that the care provider may not respond if Mrs M would wander off (at night) or had a fall in her apartment, as it had decided that no staff members should enter her accommodation. As such, the family felt there was a need for a family member to be with her 24 hours until care support was reinstated again.
15. I also found that the £200, which the Council has now offered to Mr C’s wife, is an appropriate remedy for the time and effort she spent caring for her mother for three days.
16. The care provider has already recommended a sufficient remedy for the injustice Mrs M experienced.

Back to top

Agreed actions

17. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although there was fault with the actions of the care provider, I have made recommendations to the Council.
18. I recommended that, within four weeks of my decision, the Council should pay Mr C’s wife £200 to remedy the injustice she experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

19. For reasons explained above, I have upheld Mr C’s complaint.
20. I am satisfied with the actions the Council will carry out to remedy the remaining injustice and have therefore decided to complete my investigation and close the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman