Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s care provider, Bluebird Care Bedford, failed to meet her needs properly. The evidence shows there has been no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council’s care provider, Bluebird Care Bedford (“Bluebird”), failed to meet her needs properly.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• discussed the complaint with Ms X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Ms X, Bluebird and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Ms X has a disability which affects her movement and co-ordination. Since January 2023 she has experienced chronic pain in her arms, hands and shoulders. She requires the application of medication to address her medical conditions.
7. The Council arranged for Bluebird care to take over Ms X’s package of care from 1 August 2023. Bluebird’s care plan said care workers would visit four times a day;
• Morning 09.00-100
• Teatime 15.30-16.00
• Evening 18.45-19.15

Care workers were also available to help Ms X access the community once a week (12.30-15.30).

8. On 5 August Ms X told the Council a care worker had caused her pain the previous evening, by grabbing her and moving her arm up too high. She said two other care workers had caused bruising to her legs on the first visit.
9. On 11 August Bluebird told the Council it had updated Ms X’s care plan, after she complained about care worker B (who first visited on 7 August) trying to roll her on her bed. Bluebird said the updated plan provided for a “hands-off” approach, unless Ms X asked for support.
10. On 16 August Ms X told the council care worker B had grabbed her arm and lifted it up, when this was not necessary. The next day she told the Council she was in a lot of pain, so she did not want care worker B visiting again.
11. On 19 August Ms X asked again that care worker B did not visit her again.
12. On 21 August the Council contacted Bluebird about Ms X’s request. It said the other care workers had not supported Ms X’s allegations against care worker B. It said care worker B would only support Ms X, if asked to do so. It said removing care worker B from Ms X’s calls would affect its ability to provide her care package.
13. The Council reviewed her care package with Ms X on 21 August. She said care worker B would raise her left arm slightly when applying pain relieving cream. She said this was a regular occurrence and care worker B would apply creams if asked to do so by the other care workers. She asked why she needed two care workers. The Council said it was to check all the care workers were supporting her appropriately.
14. On 22 August Bluebird told the Council Ms X had cancelled 24 calls at short notice. It said she had cancelled all the teatime calls for that week, and a community access call. The Council told Ms X Bluebird could remove care worker B from her rota, if she agreed to an earlier evening call (17.00 to 17.30). It suggested removing the teatime calls, as she had cancelled so many of them. Ms X said she did not want changes made to her care plan and said there were various reasons why she did not always need the teatime calls, but this did not mean she did not need them at all. She suggested there was no problem removing care worker B from her rota, as they had not been included on the new rota.
15. On 8 September Bluebird responded to a complaint from Ms X. It said:
• Ms X’s evening calls had been within 30 minutes of the scheduled time.
• It denied the claim that when care workers arrived late, they left early. It said the visits had all been within the target time.
• Having spoken to Ms X’s care workers, it was satisfied they were all following the correct procedures for using personal protective equipment.
• It could find no evidence of care workers discussing senior team members in a derogatory way.
16. Ms X told Bluebird she had proof from cameras in her home of care workers leaving early.
17. Bluebird told the Council it was giving notice with immediate effect on 8 Seotember. It said:
• its care workers were very reluctant to visit Ms X, and a third of them had asked not to do so.
• Ms X was prying into the lives of its care workers and asking them questions about each other.
• Ms X told some of her care workers they were not her “favourite” and other care workers were better than them.
• It had received reports from its care workers of abuse from other family members (Ms X refutes this claim).
18. The Council offered to arrange support from another care provider. But Ms X pointed out that the Care Quality Commission had found it needed to make improvements.
19. Bluebird continued to visit Ms X, so the Council could make other arrangements for Ms X’s care. However, Ms X elected to make her own arrangements for her care when it stopped visiting her, relying on family to provide her support. The Council offered Ms X direct payments to arrange her own care, but she did not want them. Bluebird stopped visiting Ms X on 15 September.
20. When the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint in November, it said:
• She had raised concerns about some of her care workers but said she would raise them with Bluebird at her weekly review meetings.
• Ms X’s social workers had also discussed her concerns with Bluebird. Bluebird had said it would struggle to support Ms X if it only provided her preferred care workers, but said those she preferred would take the lead on each visit. The Council had asked Bluebird to remind its care workers to uphold professional boundaries and follow best practice.
• The social worker had continued to discuss with Bluebird what changes it could make, but it had said it could not accommodate the changes due to staffing levels and had given notice. The social worker had offered another care provider, but Ms X elected to make her own arrangements.
• A few weeks later Ms X said she wanted care arranging again. Her preferred care provider assessed her on 26 October and said it could meet her needs, but did not have the capacity to do so. It agreed to review the position each week.
• While it acknowledged Ms X’s experience with Bluebird had been distressing for Ms X, it did not uphold her complaint.
21. As Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, so asked it to review it. The Council did this but did not change its response. The Council provided Ms X with an advanced social work practitioner as an alternative point of contact. It noted it could not always arrange support with someone’s preferred care provider, as care providers could decide who to support.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

22. Ms X did not need double handed calls to meet her need for care and support. It appears the Council sent two care workers to visit Ms X to reduce the risk of false allegations being made against them. It is clear that relations between Ms X and Bluebird declined rapidly. Bluebird tried to address the issues by updating Ms X’s care plan. However, Ms X objected to some of its care workers and asked for one of them to be removed from her rota. It appears other care workers were reluctant to visit Ms X. Bluebird decided it could not continue to provide Ms X’s care and gave notice to the Council. That was something it was entitled to do and is not evidence of fault.
23. There is nothing in Bluebird’s records to suggest its care workers were not meeting Ms X’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman