Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Care Provider communicated with Ms B. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about written communication the Care Provider that provides housing and care and support to her adult son. Ms B said when the Care Provider wrote to her its communication was inappropriate and accusatory. She said it accused her of deliberately undermining her son’s care and implied she was trying to have her son removed from the placement. Ms B said this caused her to feel shocked, distressed and intimidated. She wants the Care Provider to treat her with respect and support her appropriately as her son’s advocate. Ms B also wants the Care provider to provide reassurance any concerns she has will be considered without hostility.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms B contacted the Care Provider in March 2025 to raise concerns about an email she had received from a senior officer which she said was unprofessional. Ms B said she was troubled the officer had discussed her in a judgemental and accusatory manner with her son’s social worker. Ms B said she wanted an impartial investigation into the senior officer’s handling of the matter. She also said she wanted an apology.
6. The Care Provider accepted Ms B’s complaint and initially passed the complaint to a manager to investigate. After considering Ms B’s concerns about who would investigate the complaint the Care Provider then instructed an Independent Consultant (IC) to investigate her complaint. The IC reviewed the correspondence between Ms C and the Care Provider and said they did not find evidence to support the view the Care Provider had discussed Ms B in a judgemental or accusatory manner with her son’s social worker.
7. The IC noted they had spoken with the Care Provider’s senior officer who had reflected on written communication sent to Ms B. The senior officer accepted, with hindsight, the written communication was direct and could have been worded differently. The Care Provider apologised for any offence it had caused to Ms B. The IC said the Care Provider was keen to find a positive way forward and provided the name of manager Ms B could contact directly to raise any issues or concerns she had about her son’s care and support arrangements.
8. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Care Provider appointed an independent person to investigate Ms B’s complaint. It also apologised for any offence caused in the way it had communicated with her. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Care Provider.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman