Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has accepted our recommendations for a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for it to take to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his partner Ms Y about the Care Provider, which provided live-in care for Ms Y’s late father, Mr Z. The complaint is about:
1. An investigation into an allegation that a care worker had been drinking alcohol
2. Staff conduct during a meeting with other relatives
3. A failure to respond to the complaint in line with the complaints procedure
4. An investigation into an allegation from the care worker about Ms Y which she denies.
5. Publishing an out-of-date complaints procedure on its website.
2. Mr X says this caused Ms Y significant avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We provide a free service and use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
5. If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I investigated complaints (a), (b) and (c). I did not investigate complaints (d) or (e) because:
• Complaint (d) involves behaviour which was not witnessed. The people involved both have differing accounts. The care worker has been interviewed by their employer on at least two occasions. We could not add anything to the Care Provider’s investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
• The Care Provider has changed its website since Mr X complained and this now has an updated complaints procedure in a different format. This means there is no risk of confusion in future and so nothing to justify an investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered emails between the parties, Mr X’s complaint to the LGSCO, documents and supporting evidence of Ms Y’s personal injustice.
10. Mr X and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

11. Care providers must maintain an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record of care and of decisions in relation to care (Regulation 17 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014).
12. Our good practice guide for adult social care providers (called Quality Matters) sets out what we expect of providers when they deal with complaints. We expect providers to try and resolve a complaint as quickly as possible. We also expect providers to signpost complainants to us and the CQC at the end of their final complaint response.
13. The Care Provider’s complaints policy says it acknowledges complaints in writing within five working days and responds within 28 days.

Summary of key events

14. The Care Provider supplied live-in care workers for Mr Z between July and October 2023. He died at the end of October 2023.
15. A supervisor visited Mr Z’s home to discuss allegations from other family members that they smelled alcohol on the care worker. The supervisor (who no longer works for the Care Provider) made a note of the meeting which said:
• She spoke with Ms Y who was aware her relatives had smelled alcohol on the care worker on a previous day, but Ms Y said she had not smelled it herself.
• She spoke to the care worker, searched his bedroom and the bins, but found no alcohol.
• The supervisor asked Ms Y what she wanted to happen and she said she wanted the care worker to leave. He left immediately. Ms Y cared for her father temporarily until a replacement could be organised.
16. Ms Y emailed the Care Provider the following day, thanking them for offering a replacement care worker and saying she could look after her father meantime.
17. Over the next few weeks, there was an exchange of emails between Mr X, Ms Y and the Care provider’s manager. Those emails indicate there was a second meeting involving the supervisor, a care co-ordinator, the care worker and other family members (but not Mr X or Ms Y). During the second meeting, which one of the relatives minuted, the care worker made allegations about Ms Y. Ms Y said in an email to the Care Provider’s manager that she denied all the allegations about her.
18. The manager and Ms Y continued to email. The manager said she accepted the supervisors had not acted appropriately or professionally and the timescales in the complaints procedure had not been followed. The manager went on to say in several emails:
• She would never have agreed to a meeting with the care worker and other family members present
• Family business should not have been discussed
• The supervisor and care co-ordinator should have taken minutes of the second meeting and not the other family members. Both staff had since left the company
• She had spoken to the care worker about his allegations against Ms Y
• She was disappointed she could not resolve this or hold former staff accountable. She did not expect this from her team and was sorry.
• A safeguarding referral had been made to the local authority because of information from a different care worker about a different matter. The local authority hadn’t taken any action as far as she was aware, because Mr Z went into hospital and then died.
• The supervisor, care co-ordinator and the care worker had been involved in unprofessional conversations with other family members.
• She could not proceed further as many matters were one person’s word against another’s
• The allegation about the care worker drinking alcohol was not escalated to an internal investigation due to a lack of evidence.

Findings

Complaint (a) An investigation into an allegation that a care worker had been drinking alcohol

19. The Care Provider visited the home, spoke to the care worker and to Ms Y and obtained written information from Ms Y and other relatives about the drinking allegation. The care worker denied the allegation, no physical evidence of drinking was found and because the evidence was inconclusive, the Care Provider offered to remove the care worker. I do not consider the Care Provider to be at fault because it did everything I would expect of it in the circumstances. There is no evidence Mr Z was caused any injustice. The focus here was Mr Z’s welfare as he was the client.

Complaint (b) Staff conduct during a meeting with other relatives

20. The Care Provider acknowledged it was fault for the supervisor and care co-ordinator to hold the meeting, that staff conduct was unprofessional and a written record should have been kept. The Care Provider was at fault because it did not keep an accurate contemporaneous record and this was not in line with Regulation 17 of the 2014 Regulations. The Care Provider also accepted staff conduct was unprofessional. The meeting caused avoidable distress to Ms Y who found out about it later.

Complaint (c) A failure to respond to the complaint in line with the Care Provider’s complaints procedure

21. The Care Provider acknowledged it did not keep to the timescales in its complaints policy. This was fault causing avoidable distress. The Care Provider also did not refer Mr X and Ms Y to the LGSCO in its final response. This is not in line with our expectations, but did not cause any injustice because they complained to us without any signposting.
22. The Care Provider did not act within expected standards and this caused Ms Y avoidable distress. The Care Provider has apologised and this is a partial remedy for the injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Care Provider has apologised, which is a partial remedy for the injustice I have described in paragraphs 20 and 22.
24. The Care Provider has agreed to the following actions within one month of my final decision:
• A further apology for the fault and injustice I have found. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• A symbolic payment of £250 to recognise Ms Y’s avoidable distress
• A written reminder to all staff to keep a written record of all meetings.
• A written reminder to staff responsible for complaint responses to signpost the LGSCO at the end of the final response. Suggested wording for letters is on our website.
25. The Care Provider should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I uphold Mr X’s complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. I have recommended a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for the Care Provider to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence.
27. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman