Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it managed Mr X’s domiciliary care provision, or his complaints about this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the domiciliary care he received from a care agency acting on behalf of the Council. Mr X brings his complaint with the support of an advocate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

3. I have:
• considered the complaint and the information submitted by Mr X’s advocate;
• considered the correspondence between Mr X and the Council, including the Council’s response to his complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
• taken account of relevant legislation;
• Both Mr X’s advocate and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

4. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to all people regardless of their finances.
5. The Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014 sets out the eligibility threshold for adults with care and support needs and their carers. The threshold is based on identifying how a person’s needs affect their ability to achieve relevant outcomes, and how this impacts on their wellbeing.
6. Where local authorities have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet these needs. When a local authority has decided a person is or is not eligible for support it must provide the person to whom the determination relates (the adult or carer) with a copy of its decision.

Background

7. Mr X is in his forties and lives in his own home. He has physical and mental health issues, and difficulties with mobility, all of which impact on his day-today life.
8. I have had sight of Mr X’s needs assessment, completed by the Council which records him to have eligible care needs. The Council commissioned a care agency to provide Mr X with eight hours per week domiciliary care in March 2023.
9. Mr X says the carers did not adhere to the care plan, humiliated him, were rough with him, took his wallet, took items from his home and talked about him to his neighbours. It is not clear if the alleged thefts were reported to the police.
10. Mr X complained directly to the care agency, following which a senior staff member visited him to discuss the allegations. Mr X says he felt intimidated, judged and threatened. He alleges the staff member said his home was unhygienic, and that he was at risk of losing his home and dog.
11. Mr X’s mother contacted the care agency to request that the carer did not visit him again. Mr X also contacted the Council to request the same, but he says the request was not respected and this damaged his trust in the care agency.
12. The records show the Council requested the care agency visit Mr X to check on his wellbeing and that Mr X refused access.
13. The records show the Council contacted the care agency to discuss / investigate Mr X’s complaints. The officer found no evidence to support Mr X’s claims of poor care. The call records logs show Mr X often refused care and /or entry to his home. In respect of discussions with a carer; there were differing interpretations of events.
14. Following Mr X’s request, the care agency changed the carer attending Mr X, but Mr X remained dissatisfied, and in June 2023, he requested the service be cancelled. The records show Mr X declined support from the carer, and he would often refuse access to his home. The records show visits were rearranged within the same week, but Mr X continued to deny access. The care agency’s records show out of 35 scheduled visits, carers were only able to gain access five times. Mr X cancelled all other visits prior to, or at the time of the visit.
15. Mr X requested advocacy support ,and an advocate was appointed.
16. The Council arranged a review meeting to address the issues. Mr X, his advocate, and staff from the care agency were present. Mr X discussed his complaints and how this had impacted on his trust of care services. The care agency refutes Mr X claims. The Council updated Mr X’s support plan and Mr X was supported by his advocate to consider/agree the plan.
17. I have had sight of all email correspondence between Mr X, the Council, and between the Council and Mr X’s advocate. I have also had sight of emails exchanged between the professionals involved with Mr X, including mental health professionals. The records show the ongoing support provided by Mr X’s advocate, and the efforts of other professionals in trying to engage with Mr X and resolve the situation. Mr X has been reluctant to engage, citing his previous experience as the reason. He believes the care agency should apologise to him.
18. The Council completed a further review of Mr X needs in October 2024. This concluded Mr X continued to have eligible care needs. The Council sourced a different care agency to provide domiciliary care. The care agency was unable to contact Mr X so the Council agreed the care agency would suspend it efforts, and the allocated officer from social services would continue trying to engage with Mr X. Mr X did not respond, so the officer contacted his advocate. Mr X did not consent to the Council discussing his support needs with the advocate without him being present.
19. Mr X requested a change of allocated worker from social services. The Council says the request is currently awaiting allocation to a worker.
20. In its response to enquiries from this office the Council says in the absence of Mr X’s consent and participation it is limited in the actions it can take. It will endeavour to facilitate regular reviews and his case ‘remains’ open the mental health team as he has telecare in place.

Analysis

21. There is no evidence of any fault by the Council in the way it assessed and reviewed Mr X’s care needs.
22. I am satisfied the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints about the care agency and made reasonable efforts to resolve the situation. There is no evidence on which it could come to a finding of poor care.
23. I am unable to come to a finding on the allegation of rudeness by a carer. Based on the comments from Mr X and the care agency, there are clearly different positions on this. Complaints relating to verbal conversations are difficult to consider so I cannot criticise the Council for its inability to come to a finding.
24. On this basis, neither the Council nor this office can request the care agency apologise to Mr X.
25. I cannot uphold Mr X’s complaint that he is not being provided with effective support. His refusal to engage with the Council’s offer of a different care agency is not the fault of the Council.
26. Mr X is a vulnerable adult and clearly in need of support, however that support can only be provided with his consent and engagement. I would urge Mr X to engage with the Council directly, or via his advocate to enable it to facilitate the support he requires.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it managed Mr X’s domiciliary care provision, or his complaints about this.
28. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman