Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. The Care Provider failed to include the complainant in a care review of her relative, and there have been communication failures. There is no evidence this caused injustice to the person using the service, and the Care Provider has apologised to the complainant. It is unlikely we could add anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Care Provider has stopped communicating with her properly over the last year. The Care Provider has excluded her from meetings about her relative’s care despite her being a carer and holding power of attorney. This has impacted on Ms B’s mental health and affected her work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the action has not caused significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, including during a telephone conversation.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms B holds power of attorney for her relative, Ms C. Ms B lives with Ms C and provides care for her, alongside a formal package of care. Ms B shares the power of attorney with another relative, Ms D. Both Ms B and Ms D have the power to make decisions about Ms C’s care and finances.
6. Ms B says she had a good relationship with the Care Provider until last year when she asked to reduce the amount of care it was providing to Ms C. After this Ms D became more involved and Ms B began to feel the Care Provider was excluding her. The Care Provider should have included Ms B in Ms C’s care review but failed to do so, which resulted in the Care Provider recording wrong information. Though it does not seem to have had an impact on Ms C’s care support.
7. Ms B cancelled the care support, but Ms D reinstated it. Ms B would like the care support cancelled as she does not feel it is in Ms C’s best interests. Ms B says the care support is more than Ms C needs so is reducing her finances quicker than necessary, and Ms B can provide more informal support as she is working less. However, this is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve. As the two attorneys are in dispute about what is best for Ms C, they can ask the Court of Protection to decide.
8. I recognise Ms B’s upset at the changed relationship she has with the Care Provider, and because of its failure to include her in Ms C’s care review. The Care Provider has apologised for not including Ms B in the review and the errors that caused in the care plan. The Care Provider has reassured Ms B it is committed to working with her and remaining impartial, but it must treat Ms B and Ms D equally and accept instructions from them both as they both hold the same power of attorney. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve anything further by investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would reach a different outcome. There is no significant impact on Ms C from the Care Provider’s actions, and it has acknowledged the impact on Ms B by apologising. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants, which is to end the Care Provider’s service. The Court of Protection will need to decide what is in Ms C’s best interests if her attorneys cannot agree.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman