Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a care provider’s unilateral decision to change the home care provider without any consultation with him. This is because the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. The Council has investigated and provided remedies for the care provider’s actions. This is satisfactory and we are unlikely to add anything by investigating.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains, on behalf of Mrs Y, that the Council’s main care provider (All Care) unilaterally decided to suddenly change Mrs Y’s homecare provision (with Home Instead).
2. Mr X says that, as Mrs Y’s attorney he should have been informed. Mr X says that Mrs Y being sent a letter announcing the change could have caused her great distress.
3. Mr X also says that he has been caused time and trouble by All Care’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In this case the Council arranges or commissions care services from a main provider (All Care) who subcontracts out the care to other providers (in this complaint to Home Instead). In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions.
9. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint about All Care’s actions. It found the main provider is allowed to change providers in accord with the sub-contractual agreement it has with the Council.
10. However, the Council found fault with All Care’s communications and agreed it should not have written to Mrs Y directly. It has apologised for the distress and upset caused. The Council says it has discussed Mr X’s ‘fair and valid points’ with All Care ‘robustly’. It says it has set out its expectations for the future. It also identifies a service improvement by explaining that All Care will be expected to change procedure and discuss all future changes with the commissioning and social work teams. This is to ensure care plans are reviewed and risk assessments are carried out before any decision to change provider is made.
11. The Council also noted that a solution has been found to ensure that Mrs Y’s homecare continues with her preferred care provider, Home Instead.
12. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation. The Council has identified fault and provided a remedy in the form of an apology plus a service improvement. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines for investigating complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. We are unlikely to add anything to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman