Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of the Council’s safeguarding enquiry about concerns she raised regarding carers from the care provider who delivered her home care. Ms X alleged a carer stole money from her and another failed to tell the Council’s safeguarding team when they witnessed her fall. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. It did not substantiate the allegation of theft and there was no evidence a carer witnessed Ms X fall. Further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the outcome of the Council’s safeguarding enquiry about concerns she raised regarding carers from the care provider who delivered her home care. Ms X alleged a carer stole money from her, and another failed to tell the Council’s safeguarding team when she fell. Ms X said the Council offered an insufficient amount of money to cover the items she alleged stolen, and its investigation failed to adequately address the circumstances around the fall. Ms X said this caused her distress and uncertainty.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Ms X’s complaint and discussed it with her representative on the phone.
7. I considered the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Domiciliary Care

9. Domiciliary care is defined as the range of services put in place to care for and support people in their own homes. Support to people at home might include personal care, medication, access to the community, shopping or household tasks such as cleaning and meal preparation. This help and support can be provided by daily visits from a carer.

Safeguarding

10. Councils play the lead role in co-ordinating work to safeguard adults. Anyone who has concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable adult should raise an alert.
11. The purpose of the safeguarding process is to:
• find out the facts about what happened; and
• protect the vulnerable adult from the risk of further harm.
12. We will not normally reinvestigate a council’s safeguarding investigation. We can consider whether the council conducted a suitable investigation in line with its safeguarding procedures. If we find fault in how this happened we can look again at the matters covered by the investigation.

What happened

13. In 2020 Ms X had care needs and was reliant on care workers to assist her. Ms X received care in her home arranged and commissioned by the Council to meet her needs. Carers from the care provider attended Ms X’s home daily to support her and do her shopping for her. Ms X had one regular Carer, Carer J, who carried out all visits and had done so for the previous year.
14. In May 2020 Ms X contacted the Council to inform it she thought Carer J was stealing from her and she had reported the matter to the police. The Council discussed the matter with Ms X on the phone and she said:
• Carer J had done her shopping for her and there was an item costing £4 on her receipt she had not asked for and not received;
• she believed Carer J had added other items on to her shopping previously which she had not received but she had no evidence to support this;
• she had spoken to the care provider and asked that Carer J did not return; and
• she did not know what outcome she wanted other than Carer J not to return.
15. The Council began a safeguarding enquiry and contacted the police to discuss the matter. The police confirmed it was dealing with it as an incident rather than a crime. The Council also contacted the care provider and asked it to confirm it had removed Carer J from Ms X’s care calls and asked what other actions it had taken.
16. The care provider’s field supervisor visited Ms X at home and discussed the complaint with her. She looked at the receipt and confirmed the item in dispute was not found in the home.
17. The care provider wrote to Ms X four days later and stated it would carry out the following actions:
• Carer J would be relieved of her duties while the investigation was ongoing;
• Carer J would be retrained in the reporting and recording of financial transactions and professional boundaries;
• all future transactions would be recorded in the financial transaction form and Ms X would check and confirm the receipts; and
• it would reimburse Ms X’s money for the missing item.
18. Two days later the Council spoke with Ms X on the phone. Ms X said she was happy with the care provider’s actions and would wait for an update from the Council. The Council contacted the care provider and asked it to provide an update on the actions it identified in its letter to Ms X. It also asked the care provider to carry out spot checks on Carer J and Ms X’s new carer, Carer M, to ensure they were recording financial matters appropriately.
19. The care provider replied to the Council and stated it had completed the actions outlined in its letter and had completed a spot check during the investigation. It said it would issue a cheque for the missing item to the value of five pounds.
20. The Council responded to the care provider and asked it to complete additional actions. It asked it to:
• carry out further spot checks on Carer J to ensure they were recording financial information properly;
• provide increased supervision for Carer J; and
• complete further spot checks to Ms X to ensure Carer M was recording financial information correctly.
21. The records show the Council attempted to contact Ms X via telephone, and through Carer M so it could provide an update. The Council attempted twelve times to contact Ms X on two different numbers but did not manage to speak to her directly. The Council closed the safeguarding enquiry without updating Ms X. The police contacted the Council in July and said it was closing its enquiry as there was insufficient evidence of a crime and it had not been able to contact Ms X.
22. In September Ms X contacted the Council and asked for an update on the enquiry. The Council sent Ms X a letter explaining what actions the care provider had taken and was going to take as outlined in paragraphs 17 and 20. It said there was no clear evidence to substantiate the concern of theft, and it felt the care provider’s actions were appropriate to safeguard Ms X and the wider public.
23. Ms X contacted the Council and discussed the complaint letter, she said she was unhappy with the outcome. She was unsure about what outcome or further action she felt was needed and stated she wished to talk to her family member about the matter and would recontact the Council.
24. In November Ms X complained to the Council. She complained that:
• the care provider responded to her complaint by defending Carer J; and
• the Social Worker said no further action would be taken and they had not taken her complaint seriously.

She also asked if the field supervisor had reported witnessing Ms X fall while visiting her in June as part of the investigation.

25. In December the care provider responded to Ms X’s complaint and explained what actions it had taken as a result. It apologised Ms X felt it had defended Carer J. It stated there had been insufficient evidence to substantiate financial abuse by Carer J, but it had taken action to safeguard Ms X. It also stated it was not aware of Ms X’s fall during the care supervisor’s visit. It stated the supervisor was unaware of Ms X falling, she said she had neither witnessed it nor been informed of the fall while she was there.
26. The Council also responded to Ms X’s complaint and explained what action it had taken as a result of the initial complaint. It stated the purpose of the enquiry was to mitigate any risk to Ms X and to achieve her outcomes, which it had achieved. It asked Ms X to let it know if there were any further actions she felt were necessary to safeguard herself or others.
27. In March 2021 Ms X complained to us. She stated she was unhappy with the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry as:
• her fall was not acknowledged by the care provider or addressed by the Council;
• the cheque for five pounds did not cover the full amount for the shopping items stolen and she would like twenty pounds to cover this; and
• Carer J who stole from her was still working for the care provider.

My findings

28. When Ms X contacted the Council and informed it she thought Carer J was stealing from her the Council immediately began a safeguarding enquiry. It identified Ms X’s personal outcomes and asked the care provider to begin an investigation. It also contacted the police to discuss the matter.
29. The care provider began an investigation and identified a discrepancy and poor record keeping of financial transactions. It immediately took action to remove Carer J from Ms X’s care, to provide additional training and supervision to Carer J and to reimburse the amount identified as a discrepancy. There was no evidence of financial abuse and the complaint of theft could not be substantiated on the evidence available. The amount of financial compensation is in line with the discrepancy identified and made out of goodwill.
30. The care provider gave the Council the outcome of its investigation and its actions as a result. The Council asked the care provider for evidence it had carried out the actions and requested it to complete further actions to mitigate risk. The care provider gave the Council the evidence it had completed the actions. The Council was satisfied that Ms X had been safeguarded, any ongoing risk to anyone else had been mitigated and Ms X personal objectives had been achieved. There was no fault in the Council closing its safeguarding enquiry. Further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Ms X.
31. The Council could have written to Ms X to tell her of the outcome when other methods were not successful. However, it provided Ms X with the outcome letter as soon as she requested. Therefore, I do not deem this serious enough to warrant fault.
32. Ms X made the Council, and the care provider, aware of her fall in November which was five months after it was alleged to have happened. The care provider spoke to the supervisor who stated she was not aware of Ms X falling. Ms X had not previously made the Council or the care provider aware of the fall or raised this as a complaint with the Council. As Ms X was not at risk of ongoing abuse or neglect there was no reason to begin a safeguarding enquiry into the fall. There was no fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation would not achieve anything further or result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman