Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate her concerns about her care provider as a safeguarding matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says she was left thirsty and hungry for 11 days when she was left without care in October 2019. Ms B says she tried to get help from family members but was unable to do this resulting in damage to her wheelchair when she travelled on the underground. Ms B says although she purchases her own care, the Council should investigate these matters under its responsibility for safeguarding vulnerable adults. Ms B says she should be compensated for the lack of care and distress she has incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Ms B and the Council provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B says the Council should investigate how she was left without support for 11 days in October 2019 and the impact this has had on her mental health and wellbeing.
5. The Council says Ms B has direct payments to purchase her own care and as such, should work directly with her care provider to resolve any issues arising from the care. It said in this case, its commissioning services has been working with Ms B to resolve the issues and offered to help support her find another agency if Ms B wants to change provider.
6. Ms B uses direct payments to purchase her own care. The Council considered Ms B’s complaint and found Ms B had asked her care provider to call at a different time, later than she usually had care as she wanted to go out. The care provider could not provide care at the time Ms B wanted it, so she was without care provision between 26 October and 11 November 2019. The Council explained the issues did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding investigation as she has full capacity and can protect herself from abuse and neglect. The Council reiterated Ms B should work with her provider to resolve any concerns or change provider if she cannot.
7. There is no separate injustice from the Council’s decision not to investigate her concerns about the care provider as a safeguarding matter requiring an Ombudsman investigation. Ms B can ask the Council to provide care directly or ask it to help her source a different provider if she is unhappy with her current care provider.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman