Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Care Provider’s staff. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the actions of the Care Provider’s staff, who care for his neighbour. Mr X said the staff were rude, filmed him without his permission, and called the Police following an altercation. Mr X also raised concerns about where the carers parked, damage to his property, and the welfare of his neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider responded to Mr X and said it was sorry if he felt the carers were rude. It said it had reminded them what it expected of its staff and had explained the parking arrangements in the area. There was a dispute over exactly what happened when the altercation took place, but there was no further evidence to consider. It was standard practice to call the Police if its staff felt vulnerable.
7. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint because:
• We were not there at the time, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received.
• We could never say who was responsible for the damage to Mr X’s property. That is a matter for insurers and the courts.
• Mr X is clearly concerned about his neighbour, but he does not have consent to complain on their behalf.
8. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response he has already received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman