Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home, and damage to personal property. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. An insurance company is better placed to consider the claim for damaged property.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council provided poor care to his relative, Ms D, and damaged her glasses. This caused distress, especially when Ms D was without her glasses until they were fixed. Mr C would like the Council to pay for the full cost of the replacement glasses.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. In some cases, we cannot reach a finding.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms D receives care at home arranged by the Council. Mr C found Ms D’s glasses broken on the floor and suspects a care worker stood on them. The Council has offered £100 toward the replacement but Mr C wants the Council to pay the full amount.
7. An insurance company is better placed to consider this complaint, to decide liability and any payment for damage. Mr C can ask the Council whether to apply to its insurers or the care providers, and for the relevant details. Or Ms D could choose to claim on her own insurance for the damage.
8. Mr C also raises concerns about the standard of care. Ms D said she was left naked and cold in the bathroom, that care workers were rough with her, and that she was left without a drink. The Council has spoken with Ms D and relevant care workers but could not evidence fault. It is one person’s word against the other and so it is unlikely the Ombudsman would make a finding of fault.
9. The Council has apologised to Ms D, reminded relevant staff of the importance of ensuring availability of fluids, and put the relevant staff member on refresher training for moving and handling. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to this or achieve anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. An insurance company is better placed to consider the complaint about damaged property. An insurance company can decide who is liable and make any necessary payment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman