Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her mother’s care provider. She says it provided an inadequate service to her mother. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about her mother’s care provider. She says it provided an inadequate service to her mother, in particular:
• Carers did not attend calls at the agreed times.
• Carers did not accurate record the entry and exit times of the care calls.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s mother, Mrs Z, received care from a care provider. The care provider was commissioned by the Council. The calls were for two visits a day, 30 minutes in the morning, and 15 minutes in the afternoon. The care provider gave notice to end service in March 2023.
6. In its complaint response, the independent investigator was satisfied the care provider did not deliver home support care as commissioned in respect of time keeping and duration of visits. The investigator noted there was no evidence that other aspects of care not delivered adequately.
7. The investigation noted the Council acted appropriately to try and resolve the issues raised. It also noted the Council tried to source an alternative provider after notice was given. However, the family told the Council it had source private support through another care agency.
8. The investigation also found the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint was poor as there was a delay in responding to her complaint.
9. The Council offered £500 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. It also agreed to review Mrs Z’s charges and adjust her care bill where the invoiced times are proven to be incorrect.
10. The Council has acknowledged there was fault with the time keeping and duration of care calls, as well as with its complaint handling. The Council has offered £500 to recognise the injustice caused by these faults. This remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further recommendations.
11. The Council also agreed to review Mrs Z’s charges and make any adjustments as necessary. I do not know if the Council has made any adjustments. However, even if the Council decided not to, this would not justify an investigation. This is because any reduction in charges is for the Council to decide.
12. Further, an investigation would not lead to any further recommendations by us as when remedying loss of provision, the Ombudsman would not calculate the financial cost of the loss provision. Instead, we take the approach of remedying the distress, and any harm/risk of harm, caused. In this case, the Council’s offer of £500 is in line with our guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman