Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer’s conduct during two telephone calls. It is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain Mrs X’s care manager, in response to an incident between Mrs X and her carer:
• was biased towards Mrs X’s carer and did not properly consider Mrs X’s version of events; and
• threatened Mrs X would lose her direct payments and be without care.
2. Mr and Mrs X say this caused Mrs X distress and she feared she would lose care and support which she relies on. They say the Council then failed to consider their complaint properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. An incident took place in February between Mrs X and her carer, who she employed via direct payments. Both Mrs X and the carer wished for employment to cease with immediate effect. Mrs X contacted the Council’s direct payments team about the matter with a view to being supported to find a new carer.
7. Mrs X’s care manager was notified of the incident by the direct payments team after the carer had also contacted them. The care manager contacted Mrs X to discuss the matter. Mr and Mrs X say the care manager had already made assumptions in line with the carer’s allegations, and was unwilling to properly consider their version of events. They say the care manager threatened Mrs X with having her direct payments removed to be provided a commissioned package. Mrs X says she felt her choice and control was being taken away, and that she was being victimised and punished.
8. The Council’s complaint response said the officer had not intended to sound threatening, and had made detailed records of Mrs X’s account of the incident. It said the officer had raised the issue of commissioned care, which was faster to arrange in the event of service breakdown, as a possible option to ensure Mrs X did not have periods without any service in the future.
9. When we investigate complaints, we try to come to decisions about what happened, on the balance of probabilities. In this case, it would not be possible for us to do so. We were not witness to the telephone calls, so we could not now say what exactly was discussed. Nor could we make value judgements about things like tone of voice and attitude, which are highly subjective. It is unlikely that investigating this complaint would result in us finding substantive evidence of fault by the officer, and so we will not investigate.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman