Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged discriminatory comments made by a carer to Miss X. We could not add to the investigation the Care Provider carried out, nor could we achieve anything different or more meaningful by investigating the matter further. It is not proportionate to investigate complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained a carer employed by the Council-commissioned Care Provider made discriminatory comments against two protected characteristics, one of which applied to Miss X. She said the Care Provider then failed to respond to her complaint about the matter.
2. Miss X said this caused her significant distress and worry about the potential for further incidents. She wanted the Care Provider to investigate the matter, acknowledge fault, apologise and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Equality Act 2010 sets out nine ‘protected characteristics’. People with a protected characteristic are protected in law from discrimination in certain circumstances, including while using public services.
7. Miss X says a carer employed by the Care Provider made discriminatory remarks about a protected characteristic she holds, as well as another protected characteristic. Miss X reported the comments to the Care Provider.
8. The Care Provider wrote to Miss X the same day explaining it would deal with the allegations via its Human Resources (HR) procedures as well as responding via its complaints procedure. It explained it would not be able to tell Miss X the outcome of any internal HR processes.
9. Miss X complained to us two months later as she had not received an outcome to her complaint. The Care Provider contacted Miss X shortly by telephone after this, in late 2025, to explain its findings. It had been unable to come to a conclusion about the comments, given they were alleged to have been made verbally and there were no other witnesses to the conversations.
10. I have seen the Care Provider’s investigation report. I am satisfied it properly considered Miss X’s allegations and weighed these against other available evidence. We could not add to the investigation the Care Provider carried out. We could not come to sound conclusions for the same reasons as the Care Provider. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome, and it is not therefore proportionate for us to investigate the matter.
11. The Care Provider responded to Miss X’s complaint verbally, and Miss X did not receive a written complaint response. However, it is not a proportionate use of public resources to investigate complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter complained of. We will therefore not investigate the Care Provider’s complaint-handling further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation the Care Provider carried out, nor could we achieve anything different or more meaningful by investigating the matter further. It is not proportionate to investigate complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman