Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to his mother by Company A, a Council-commissioned care provider. Company A has investigated Mr X’s concerns, upheld parts of the complaint and apologised. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the standard of care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, by Company A on behalf of the Council. He says this placed extra pressure on him to check Mrs Y’s care. Mr X wants Company A to accept its failings and learn from his complaint.

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 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 Company A.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council commissioned Company A to provide care to Mrs Y following her discharge from hospital in February 2024. Company A cared for Mrs Y for a week before she was readmitted to hospital following a deterioration in her health.
6. Mr X complained to Company A in March 2024. He said its carers should have noticed the deterioration in Mrs Y’s health. He said carers had frequently turned up at the wrong times and not completed the entire care visit or care tasks as specified in Mrs Y’s care plan. Mr X said carers did not know how to properly log their visits and on one occasion gave Mrs Y the wrong information about her medication dosage.
7. Company A upheld parts of Mr X’s complaint. It apologised one carer had not followed its processes when logging Mrs Y’s medication, and for carers not introducing themselves to Mrs Y when visiting. However, it said it had reviewed its records which showed no issues logging care visits, with visits taking place at the specified times. It said its records showed it had delivered the necessary care to Mrs Y apart from when Mrs Y had already washed herself. When carers had left early this had been at the request of family members or because Mrs Y refused care. It explained that because Mrs Y was a new customer its carers had not known her well enough to notice any deterioration in her condition over such a short care period.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. Company A has investigated Mr X’s concerns, upheld parts of the complaint and apologised. This is a suitable remedy for any uncertainty and distress caused by the upheld parts of complaint. Company A has reviewed its records and found that visits took place as scheduled and explained to Mr X why some care tasks were not completed. It is unlikely further investigation by us could add to this or would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman