Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inadequate domiciliary care. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a more meaningful outcome as the Council has now agreed to refund Mrs Y’s care charges. It has also provided explanations and apologies, and created an action plan with the care provider.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the standard of care her mother (Mrs Y) received from a domiciliary care agency, and visits being cut short. She says the Council failed to look into the matter in a timely way. She says she went to inconvenience in gathering information, meeting with the Council, chasing it for responses and providing care for her mother. She wants the Council to apologise, provide explanations and refund Mrs Y’s care contributions. She also wants it to end its contract with the care agency.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s complaint is about the care provided to her mother, which she says was not up to standard and often comprised of short visits of under ten minutes each. She reported the matter to the Council, and it opened a safeguarding enquiry due to the concerns. There is no evidence of fault in the time it took the Council to carry out its enquiries. The law does not set definitive timescales for adult safeguarding enquiries, but the Council began investigating the matter the same day and agreed an outcome and action plan within ten days of the referral. This would not amount to fault.
6. Via its complaints process, the Council has accepted there was fault in the actions of the care provider (for which the Council is responsible). It also accepted fault in its delays in reviewing Mrs Y’s care package and in not advising Mrs X when it arranged for a new care provider to take over Mrs Y’s care package. It has provided some apologies and explanations.
7. The Council has also explained the steps it has taken, including developing an improvement plan jointly with the care provider. We could not recommend a council ends its contract with a care provider, and the action it has taken is in line with the recommendations we would make if we investigated the complaint.
8. The Council has also confirmed the fees Mrs Y paid will be refunded in recognition of the injustice caused by these matters. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a significantly more meaningful outcome, so it would not be proportionate for us to investigate the matter now.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve a significantly more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman