Summary: There is evidence of failings in some areas of domiciliary care provided to Mr X. The Council acknowledged this and offered an appropriate remedy before the complaint came to this office. There is no outstanding injustice requiring a remedy from this office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the quality of care he received from two domiciliary care providers, commissioned by the Council, between July & December 2022.
2. Mr X believes he should not have to pay for care during the above period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have:

• considered the complaint submitted by Mr X;
• considered the correspondence between Mr X and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint;
• considered the Council’s records of Mr X’s care;
• confirmed with the Council, the basis for its offer to remedy the complaint;
• taken account of relevant legislation;
• offered Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

6. The Care Act 2014 provides a single legal framework for charging for care and support. Where a local authority arranges care and support to meet a person’s eligible need, the local authority has a power to charge that individual, except where the local authority is required to arrange care and support free of charge.
7. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) is statutory guidance which councils should have regard to when charging people for care they provide.

What happened

8. Mr X is a diabetic and uses a wheelchair. Between July 2022 and December 2022, he received domiciliary care from two separate care agencies, commissioned by the Council.
9. Mr X says the visits were scheduled at specific times to enable him to manage his diabetes. He says the carers did not adhere to these times, and this had a negative impact his health.
10. Mr X says he complained to a social worker every day for seven months, but no action was taken. He believes he should not have to pay for the care provided between July 2022 – December 2022.
11. The Council’s records of Mr X’s care show he raised numerous concerns about his care, he complained about timings of visits, carers not undertaking duties properly and male carers attending when he requested female carers only.
12. The records show some carers raised complaints about Mr X’s behaviour towards them and refused to visit. Carers also complained Mr X was smoking whilst they were present and that he refused to allow them to open a window. Mr X also excluded some carers. This created issues with staff availability.
13. The records show the Council logged all the concerns raised by Mr X and the care agencies. The Council recorded its interventions after each complaint/concern was raised. It consistently liaised with the two different care agencies in an attempt to resolve matters. It also discussed the carers complaints directly with Mr X.
14. Mr X submitted a formal complaint about the quality of care received to the Council in April 2023 and said he was unwilling to pay the bill for the care.
15. The Council responded in writing in June 2023. The author of the letter confirms a telephone discussion with Mr X had taken place. She (author) says “efforts were made by all parties to try and resolve the situation and manage expectations on a number of occasions.” The author acknowledged Mr X’s distress and offered to deduct £500 from the outstanding invoice for Mr X’s care.
16. From January 2023 Mr X received care from a different care agency. He is reported to be satisfied with the care provided.

Analysis

17. I am satisfied the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns appropriately. It acknowledges there were some issues with the care provided, and that Mr X experienced some distress and inconvenience as a result.
18. However, it is fair to say that not all the issues that arose were due to failings by the Council or two care agencies involved.
19. I consider the Council’s offer to reduce Mr X’s outstanding invoice by £500 a proportionate remedy for the distress/inconvenience he experienced. There is no outstanding injustice that requires a remedy from this office.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There is evidence of failings in some areas of domiciliary care provided to Mr X. The Council acknowledged this and offered an appropriate remedy before the complaint came to this office. There is no outstanding injustice requiring a remedy from this office.
21. 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