Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care provider. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the care provider responded to the complaint. We could not add to the care providers response and there is no worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The person using the service has now moved so is no longer receiving support from the care provider complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the care provider acting on behalf of the Council refused to consider her complaint, and it was not correct for the response to come from the person it did. Ms B says the Council did not respond to her correspondence about the issues. Ms B just wants her relative Mr C, who receives support from the care provider, to feel safe and confident in his environment.

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
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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. Mr C lives independently and was receiving support from the care provider. Ms B has raised concerns about the support over the last few years. This complaint is about the care providers response in May this year.
6. The response came from a member of staff that Ms B believes should not have been involved. But the staff member explained why it was their role to respond. The care provider said it would not respond to concerns that it has previously responded to. The care provider responded to anything that was a new concern and confirmed it would continue to do so.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault here. The care provider’s response was appropriate. We would not expect bodies in our jurisdiction to continue to correspond on matters they have already addressed; in the same way the Ombudsman would not entertain a repeated complaint we have already considered.
8. Mr C has now moved and is no longer supported by this care provider. Hopefully Mr C feels safe and confident in his new environment.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Ms B has longstanding concerns about the staff training, expertise, and management at the care provider. As Mr C has moved these issues are now resolved for him. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable to justify an investigation. Ms B could raise these general concerns with the Care Quality Commission who regulate care providers in England.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman