Summary: Ms B complains the Care Provider damaged and mislaid her mother’s belongings. We found items were moved without consulting the family, which was fault. This caused uncertainty, which is an injustice. The Care Provider should reduce its invoice by £300 to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs M, that Carlcare Ltd:
• Moved her mother’s personal belongings without consent. The items, which are of significant sentimental value, are now damaged or have gone missing, causing distress.
• Refused mediation and instead threatened legal action, causing distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Ms B about her complaint and considered the information she sent, the Care Provider’s response to my enquiries and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
8. Ms B and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care Regulations

9. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards those registered to provide care services must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards below which care must never fall. The standards include:
• Safe care and treatment (Regulation 12): Providers must do all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate risks to the service user’s health and safety. The provider must have arrangements to take appropriate action if there is a clinical or medical emergency.
• Safeguarding from abuse (Regulation 13): Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment, this includes neglect.
10. Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 says providers must notify CQC of all incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who use services. These include:
• any injury that has resulted in impairment or could do so without treatment.
• any allegation of abuse (including theft, misuse or misappropriation of money or property) in relation to a service user; and
• any incident which is reported to, or investigated by, the police.

Safeguarding

11. A local authority must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (Care Act 2014, section 42)
12. Care providers must alert the local authority to any incidents where there may have been abuse or neglect of a service user. Abuse includes misuse of medication and financial abuse such as theft or the misuse or misappropriation of possessions. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, 14.16)
13. Where any form of abuse is suspected, the provider must take appropriate action without delay. This action must include investigation and referral to relevant external bodies.

The Care Provider’s terms and conditions

14. The Care Provider does not have a policy on lost, stolen or damaged policy but its staff handbook says it “expects to be notified immediately of any loss or damage caused whilst on duty in a client's property. There is absolutely no penalty for honesty.” In response to my enquiries the Care Provider said this was covered in staff inductions. It also has a procedure for recording and reporting adverse events to supervisors.
15. The Care Provider’s contract terms say it will be responsible for all expenses, loss and/or damage suffered if this is due to the company’s or the carer’s negligence or misuse of the property. Service users may receive a reduction or cancellation of charges in these circumstances. Service users must have insurance to cover accidental damage to their home or its contents.
16. The contract also says the care worker’s duties will not extend to domestic work beyond what is necessary for the provision of services and that if it found the service user’s home to not be safe, it should assist the service user with making any changes.
17. The contract says the Care Provider may cancel the service by giving seven days’ notice and may charge interest on monies owed.

What happened

18. I have set out the key events leading to Ms B’s complaint. This is not meant to detail everything that happened.
19. Mrs M lived at home and paid herself for a homecare agency (Agency X) to visit four times a day. Following a fall, after Mrs M came out of hospital she had to be cared for in bed. Ms B therefore asked Carlcare (the Care Provider) in February 2023 to provide a live-in carer. Mrs M funded her own care.
20. The Care Provider’s assessment of Mrs M’s needs says its carers would provide personal and continence care, administer medication, prepare meals and do domestic tasks such as laundry and cleaning. Agency X wrote to the Care Provider to say it would order and dispose of medication. The live-in care started on 28 February 2023.
21. On 21 April the live-in carer reported that she had accidentally administered out of date eyedrops to Mrs M for two days. She had spoken to the pharmacy who had advised no harm would be caused to Mrs M. The Care Provider emailed Agency X, which was responsible for disposal of medication, to alert them. Agency X said it had received guidance previously that there was a risk of infection so Mrs M should be monitored for redness or pain in the eyes. It also noted that a medication error should be reported to safeguarding.
22. A Care Provider manager visited Mrs M’s home to check the medication and discussed it with Mrs M’s GP. The Care Provider met Ms B as she had concerns about the care being provided. It agreed to reduce the invoice for one week by £400 as a goodwill gesture. A new live-in carer started.
23. On 14 May, the Care Provider’s daily record says that Ms B had been looking for a ring but had since located it. She was also searching for a picture. On 20 May, the record says Ms B had been searching for some gifts for Mrs M which she later found had been moved. The live-in carer reported this to the Care Provider as Ms B was concerned that possessions had been moved. The live-in carer said she had not moved the items.
24. The Care Provider asked Ms B to say which items had been misplaced or taken, as this was a serious accusation against its staff. In response, on 22 May Ms B said the gifts had been moved but there were other valuable items she was unable to find. Ms B wanted to look through boxes which the live-in carers had tidied away. Ms B considered this had been unnecessary as it did not relate to her mother’s care. Ms B also made a complaint about the live-in carer, including about a comment she had made to a third party about Mrs M.
25. The Care Provider told Ms B on 31 May it had decided to give notice. It stopped providing care on 11 June.
26. Ms B emailed the Care Provider on 22 June to say that she had opened a box to find that family wine glasses of significant sentimental value were broken. A ring was also missing. The Care Provider replied on 3 July that the box had been moved by a carer onto a shelf from the floor.
27. The Care Provider sent Ms B a formal complaint response on 26 July. It said it had carried out an internal investigation but no-one could say when the glasses had been damaged. Alleged theft of the ring should be reported to the police but was not a safeguarding matter. In relation to the eyedrops, it had been advised by the pharmacy that no harm would have been caused to Mrs M so this did not need to be reported to CQC. It asked Ms B to pay the final week’s invoice.
28. Ms B contacted the local authority’s safeguarding team. She said the Care Provider had dismissed her concerns and would not accept responsibility for the damage to irreplaceable items. The Council decided there was no requirement to conduct a safeguarding enquiry. It passed the matter to its quality assurance team. The Council said it did not get involved in contract disputes between self-funded care providers and service users. But it agreed to review Ms B’s concerns in this instance as the Care Provider had been happy for it to do so.
29. Ms B told the Care Provider she would withhold £300 of the payment for the final week’s care as a “fair reflection of the value of the items that disappeared and were damaged whilst its carers were in residence and rearranging possessions without permission.”
30. The Council sent the outcome of its considerations to Ms B and the Care Provider on 22 September. It had found:
• The contract included cleaning, and it could not say that tidying items away was done with any ill intent, but this should not have been done without consulting Mrs M or Ms B.
• Allegations of theft should have been made to the police and a safeguarding alert raised with the Council.
• In relation to the eyedrops, the Care Provider and/or Agency X should have raised a safeguarding alert with the Council at the time. It should also have advised Ms B to contact NHS 111 to get health advice. As lead carer, the Care Provider should have had sole responsibly for the management of medication.
31. The Council suggested mediation as a way forward which Ms B agreed to but the Care Provider did not. The Care Provider said it would pursue full payment of its final invoice. Ms B came to the Ombudsman.

My findings

32. It is not my role to decide what happened to Mrs M’s property and I cannot establish liability for missing or damaged valuables. This is a matter which can only be properly decided by a court. There is no dispute that the glasses were broken and the ring missing. I can make no finding on the ring as there is insufficient evidence. It is possible that the glasses were broken when the box was moved, but on the evidence seen I have no grounds to conclude this, even on the balance of probabilities.
33. However, I agree with the Council’s view that whilst the Care Provider’s remit included cleaning, the tidying away should not have been done without consulting Mrs M or Ms B. I find that moving the items without discussion with them was fault and that this has caused uncertainty to Mrs M about how the glasses were broken. This is an injustice.
34. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says that to remedy distress and uncertainty caused by fault, a moderate symbolic payment up to £500 may be appropriate.
35. In relation to the eyedrops, I have seen no evidence that this caused harm to Mrs M and I consider the risk of harm to be small as the error was noticed after two days, so Mrs M’s condition could be monitored. I also note that the Care Provider reduced an invoice by £400 following this incident. So my view is that any injustice caused by using the wrong eyedrops has already been remedied.
36. As set out above, care providers should investigate incidents (including getting statements from witnesses) and inform the Police, the CQC and local authority. The Care Provider spoke to its staff but it did not raise safeguarding alerts or report the matter to the police. This was fault but it did not cause injustice to Mrs M or Ms B. I note that all incidents have now been appropriately reported.
37. The Care Provider responded to Ms B’s complaint on 26 July, in line with its complaint procedure. It did not agree to mediation, which is a decision it is entitled to make. It continued to pursue full payment plus interest in line with its contract. This is not fault.

Back to top

Recommended action

38. Within a month of my final decision, the Care Provider should write to Ms B confirming it has reduced the amount owed by £300.
39. The Care Provider should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was fault by the Care Provider. The actions the Care Provider has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman