Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her as a paid personal carer and the quality of care being delivered by a care provider to her family member. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, we could not achieve the outcome she wants and we do not consider her as a suitable representative.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council unfairly removed her as a paid personal carer to a family member, Y and commissioned an unsuitable care provider to support Y’s care needs. Miss X said the matter caused her distress and affected her financially. She wants her role back as Y’s personal carer.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was Y’s paid personal carer. The contract was between Y and Miss X.
6. The Council became aware of concerns about Y’s safety and wellbeing which involved Miss X and so in response, the Council began a safeguarding investigation. It removed Miss X from the role as Y’s personal carer and instead, commissioned a care provider to support Y’s care needs.
7. Under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, councils have a duty to take action if they suspect an adult who is vulnerable is at risk of abuse or neglect. We therefore cannot be critical of the Council for taking action which included removing Miss X as Y’s carer. The Council had a duty to protect Y. We would find fault if the Council took no action. Subsequently, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
8. We also would not be able to achieve the outcome Miss X wants as the Council was not Miss X’s employer.
9. Furthermore, we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the current Care Provider and its standard of care it is providing to Y because we do not consider Miss X as a suitable representative to complain on behalf of Y. This is due to the ongoing safeguarding investigation which concerns Miss X as well as Miss X wanting her role back as Y’s carer, which presents a conflict of interest.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, we could not achieve the outcome she wants and we do not consider her as a suitable representative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman