Summary: Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider failed to protect her adult son Mr Y’s belongings and to supervise another resident who damaged his clothes. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Mr Y’s laundry care plan was complied with by Mr Y’s care providers. It has already offered Mrs X a payment to replace damaged clothes. It has agreed to pay her an additional £200 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble she was caused by this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider, Fitzroy, failed to protect her adult son, Mr Y’s, belongings over the five years it supported him, through care workers not taking proper care of his things and failing to supervise another resident whose actions damaged Mr Y's clothes. Mrs X wants her son to be financially recompensed for these losses.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) Mrs X has complained about matters back to 2017. I can see no good reason to consider what has happened back to 2017 as it was open to Mrs X to complain to us at the time. I have exercised my discretion to consider what has happened since September 2020 as Mrs X was ill and unable to complain at that time. At that point Mr Y returned to the supported accommodation following a period staying with Mrs X due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mr Y lives in supported living accommodation along with other adults. Mr Y has learning difficulties and a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Fitzroy (care provider 1) provided support staff to meet Mr Y and the other residents’ care and support needs. Mrs X raised a number of concerns with the Council about Mr Y’s care and support and it held regular meetings with the care provider and Mrs X regarding these. Mrs X’s complaint to us specifically focuses on the care of Mr Y’s belongings.
8. Mrs X originally complained about issues with Fitzroy (care provider 1) only. However given the issues continued with Advance (care provider 2) who took over in April 2022 and the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint about this in February 2023, I have also considered care provider 2’s actions.
9. Mrs X made a separate complaint to us regarding Mr Y’s continence care by care provider 1 and the subsequent damage this caused to his mattress. This was investigated under a separate reference (22005467) so those matters were not considered as part of this investigation.

What happened

Care provider 1

10. In July 2021 Mrs X emailed care provider 1 with details of clothes she had bought Mr Y. In the email she referred to clothes being stained and six pairs of joggers being dirty. She wanted to discuss this. She was concerned care provider 1 was not treating stains when they occurred.
11. In further correspondence with care provider 1, she raised concerns about the way Mr Y’s clothes were dried. The care provider confirmed his clothes would be dried without using a tumble drier.
12. In November 2021 Mrs X emailed care provider 1 with a number of concerns about Mr Y’s care and support. This included underwear and clothes shrinking on a new electric airer and Mr Y having a number of odd socks. Care provider 1 met with Mrs X and in a follow up email she referred to the care provider agreeing to buy replacement socks and her returning underwear which had shrunk to see if the shop would replace it.
13. In January 2022 Mrs X sent photos to the Council and care provider 1 of items of Mr Y’s clothing that had shrunk. Mrs X reported that early on in the placement another resident liked to put things from the washing machine into the tumble dryer and part of the solution was for staff to do Mr Y’s laundry at night. Mrs X said she was told this resident was going into others’ bedrooms, gathering washing and putting it in the machine unsupervised. She asked that this be discussed with staff.
14. The care provider responded that the measures it had put in place were deemed to work well and there was no evidence to support her suggestion that another resident was accessing Mr Y’s laundry. It said it had strategies in place which staff were clear on.
15. The Council prepared a proposed laundry care plan to address Mrs X’s concerns about Mr Y’s laundry and asked that once this was agreed it was shared with the staff. This was introduced in March 2022.
16. Mrs X requested that care provider 1 produce an inventory of all Mr Y’s belongings and clothes which the care provider did not agree to do. Mrs X said she had to repeatedly replace his belongings due to shrinkage and excessive staining. She said gifts and items were unusable as Mr Y was not supported to put them away. Mrs X said care provider 1 had failed to take her concerns seriously and the other resident was still interfering with washing and drying of other people’s clothes. She said Mr Y’s clothes were to be washed at night to avoid this. However, night staff were not adhering to the laundry care plan. Mrs X requested £5,000 in compensation for Mr Y’s losses over a five year period.
17. Care provider 1 responded and advised it would ‘not be paying compensation for clothing going back 5 years in this way. If it were clear that there was specific damage to an item due to staff negligence then we would look to compensate for that individual item and we have done that before. When we last spoke, you suggested that the debt that you currently owe Fitzroy be used to compensate for the time and trouble to complete an inventory. Our executive team are willing to write this debt off as a compromise to your request’. At that time Mrs X owed money to the care provider for Mr Y’s property maintenance contribution.
18. Mrs X and a Council staff member completed an inventory of Mr Y’s belongings.
19. Mrs X complained to care provider 1. She provided details of specific clothes/equipment which she said were damaged and requested £5000.
20. In March 2022 following a meeting with the Council, care provider 1 agreed to introduce a laundry care plan which set out the do’s and do nots of how Mr Y’s clothes should be laundered.
21. In July 2022 care provider 1 responded to Mrs X’s complaint about Mr Y’s belongings. It said Mrs X had periodically raised issues and had been compensated at times i.e funds to replace boxer shorts. It said it would expect there to be normal wear and tear over five years. As a gesture of goodwill it offered Mrs X:
• £250 to replace damaged clothes.
• £65 for the cost of a replacement game cover.
• £35 to replace a lost remote control.
• £200 for a replacement sun lounger.
22. It said it would deduct this from money that Mrs X owed the care provider, along with a payment towards a replacement mattress, leaving a small balance which it would write off. Mrs X remained unhappy as she considered the care provider had previously agreed to write off the debt as a result of her preparing the inventory.

Care provider 2

23. In April 2022, following a re-tendering exercise, a new care provider, Advance (care provider 2), took over responsibility for providing the care and support to the residents. Most of the staff transferred over to the new provider. Mr Y’s care and support plan noted concerns about the care of Mr Y’s possessions and clothing. It recommended a separate washing machine be considered for Mr Y’s clothes and that Mr Y’s room be locked when he was not in.
24. In April 2022 the Council updated Mr Y’s care and support plan. This noted the social worker and a senior manager had met regularly with care provider 1 to discuss repetitive inconsistencies in the application of Mr Y’s support plan. Since care provider 2 took over the Council continued to meet regularly with care provider 2 and Mr Y was open to the Adult Social Care at Risk Framework (SCARF) to ensure Mr Y’s care needs were met and there was a consistently high standard going forward. This plan noted resistance from front line staff which it attributed to a relationship breakdown between the team and the family under care provider 1’s support.
25. The plan noted care provider 1 had difficulties with recruitment in the past but the new care provider, care provider 2, had successfully begun to recruit to vacancies within the supported living accommodation, aiming to provide a regular staff team for Mr Y to ensure consistency in meeting his support plan. It noted the planned move of two tenants from the property who were currently being supported elsewhere.
26. The care plan noted Mr Y needed support with his laundry, to ensure his clothes were clean and stain free. It noted there was a laundry plan in place for Mr Y’s washing as he had historically had an issue with clothes shrinkage. It noted ‘there was another tenant who liked to empty the washing machine and put its contents into the tumble drier who had since moved out’. It noted only Mr Y’s bedding and towels should be tumble dried. It noted Mrs X had sought compensation for shrunken clothes on numerous occasions and therefore it was in everyone’s best interests to follow the laundry care plan.
27. In September 2022 the Council says it gave Mrs X £200 towards damaged clothing.
28. In Autumn 2022 the two residents who had previous left the tenancy returned. This included the resident who Mrs X says interferes with laundry.
29. In December 2022 Mrs X once again raised concerns that Mr Y’s clothes were shrinking. She met with the Council who agreed she could apply for funding for replacement clothes. Mrs X requested £200 which the Council agreed to.
30. Following this Mrs X emailed the Council and care provider 2 that Mr Y’s clothes and bedding were all being washed together at 65 degrees. She said she believed night staff were not washing different clothes at different temperatures and it was either that or the other resident was interfering with the laundry again. Mrs X considered £200 would not actually cover Mr Y’s losses. The Council says it paid Mrs X £270 in January 2023.
31. Mrs X emailed a formal complaint to care provider 2 in January 2023. This acknowledged the Council had authorised some reimbursements for damaged clothing. She said staff were clearly not following the laundry care plan. As clothes were being washed at a high temperature and were being tumble dried. Mrs X believed staff were not managing the other resident’s repetitive behaviour.
32. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council about the damage to Mr Y’s clothes. It responded in February 2023. It noted that it offered Mrs X £200 for damaged clothing in September 2022 and a further £270 in January 2023. As a gesture of goodwill it offered to pay Mrs X £500 in respect of recent damage to clothes and to ensure these could be properly replaced. It understood care provider 2 was working with Mr Y to ensure his belongings were appropriately maintained.
33. Mr Y now has a dedicated team working with him to meet his care and support needs.

Findings

34. Mrs X raised concerns Mr Y’s clothes were not being washed appropriately in 2021. Care provider 1 agreed not to tumble dry Mr Y’s clothes yet the evidence suggests either Mr Y’s clothes were washed at too high a temperature or were tumble dried. Mrs X believes this was due to either the staff not properly managing another resident’s behaviour or staff failing to follow the washing instructions. Either way the care provider was at fault. It failed to ensure Mr Y’s clothes were properly cared for.
35. Mrs X raised her concerns about damage to Mr Y’s belongings with care provider 1 and sought compensation. At that time Mrs X owed care provider 1 some money and Mrs X requested it write this off in lieu of the time taken for her to complete an inventory of Mr Y’s belongings. Care provider 1 agreed to write it off ‘in lieu of her request’ but I cannot say whether it meant in lieu of her request for compensation or more specifically related to the time taken to complete the inventory. In a letter in response to Mrs X’s complaint care provider 1 set out how it had offset the amount owed against her specific requests related to damaged belongings and had then written off the balance. Mrs X does not dispute she owed the debt to care provider 1 and so I cannot say it was fault to offset the costs.
36. The Council sought to address Mrs X’s concerns through introducing a detailed and specific laundry care plan in March 2022. However when care provider 2 took over, incidents continued to occur. Staff from care provider 1 transferred over and the problems continued. This failure to ensure the staff complied with the care plan was fault.
37. Mrs X contacted the Council with details of damaged clothing and it made payments to her in September 2022 and January 2023 in acknowledgement of this. In response to Mrs X’s complaint in February 2023 the Council offered her a further £500 in respect of damage to clothes.
38. The Ombudsman does not offer compensation in the way a court might. It is not our role to assess economic loss or award compensation. When someone has been caused an injustice because of fault we try to put them back in the position they would have been if not for the error. The Council and care providers have recompensed Mrs X for damaged items. Mrs X does not consider this covers the impact on Mr Y’s clothes throughout this time period. However there will always be some element of wear and tear and damage which in itself is not necessarily fault. When Mrs X raised specific issues about individual items it appears she was recompensed.
39. Although the Council has recompensed Mrs X for damaged items it has failed to consider the frustration and time and trouble caused to her by the care providers’ faults.
40. 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 I found fault with the actions of the care providers, I have made recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused by its failure to ensure Mr Y’s laundry care plan was complied with. This is in addition to the £500 it has offered to replace Mr Y’s damaged clothes.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman