Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s decision to outsource services it provided to residents of its adjacent independent living apartments. There is insufficient evidence the Care Provider’s actions amount to fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Care Provider’s decision to withdraw and outsource parts of its services that it provided to independent living residents in a building adjacent to a care home. He said the Care Provider:
• Did not properly consider the impact on residents;
• Did not properly consider views and objections;
• Provided unclear and inaccurate information; and
• Failed to properly engage with complaints and used the process to justify its predetermined decision.
2. Mr X said this meant residents would be dependent on stretched emergency services, likely waiting longer for assistance. He said residents and their families had experienced significant concern and distress. He said many of the residents purchased their homes because of the service, and feared their properties’ value would now be reduced. He also said the decision meant residents would need to pay for works to upgrade the firmware in the building from copper to digital.
3. Mr X wanted the Care Provider to keep its current service or fully fund the transition to a new one. He wanted it to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about adult social care providers and decides 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
5. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• the action has not caused injustice to the person complaining; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
  (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Residents living in the independent living apartments in question have benefited from an emergency response service provided by the Care Provider for several years. While the residents pay a service charge as part of their leases, the service in question did not attract a specific charge. The Care Provider proposed to outsource the emergency response service to an external provider.
9. Mr X’s complaint includes concern the Care Provider did not properly consider views of residents. There is insufficient evidence of this. It invited comments on the proposal, met with the Residents’ Association and considered different options. There is a significant amount of correspondence about the matter. The Care Provider decided after consultation to offer to continue some reduced emergency response provision, and has offered residents the option to opt out of some elements of the new outsourced service. The changes it made to the proposal are evidence of how it considered residents’ concerns.
10. The Care Provider has set out its reasons for deciding to outsource the service. These include that the service took resources from the care home, which placed care home residents at risk due to understaffing. While Mr X and the other residents may not agree with the reasons for the decision, this does not mean the Care Provider was at fault.
11. The Care Provider has accepted some unclear information was provided, and apologised for this where relevant. This did not affect its decision, so has not caused an injustice.
12. Mr X’s complaint also included concern that the Care Provider’s decision is a breach of contract. The lease between the Care Provider and the residents does not specifically include the services in question. While Mr X is concerned the Care Provider used reference to the services as a key part of marketing the apartments, and considers there was an implied contract, it was for residents to seek the appropriate legal advice when purchasing their properties. The Care Provider was not obliged to continue providing the services in question.
13. The charges residents now face are not due to fault by the Care Provider, as it was entitled to decide to withdraw and outsource the service. Works to be carried out to upgrade the firmware in the building from copper to digital are a necessity due to changes that will take effect in 2027, although the Care Provider has more recently agreed to delay these works.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence the Care Provider’s actions amounted to fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman