Summary: We will not investigate Mrs S and Mrs T’s complaint for
Mr V about the standards of care he received from a provider commissioned by the Council in his independent living accommodation because any injustice in it is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve anything worthwhile by investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs S and Mrs T say the care provider commissioned by the Council to provide core hours for emergencies in the place their father, Mr V, lives is failing to provide a satisfactory service, affecting Mr V’s general health and wellbeing. They say they and Mr V have had to arrange a different care provider for added care hours he needs because they could not rely on the one the Council uses for the core hours. Mrs S and Mrs T want the care provider investigated and for the Council not to continue its contract.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 complainants and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs S and Mrs T’s complaint is about the core hours of care the Council commissions to provide emergency cover for residents who need it at short notice, and about the extra hours Mr V commissioned privately.
6. The Council told us it meets regularly with the care provider it commissions, and is reviewing its buying of the service but cannot share details of its discussions with Mrs S and Mrs T. It says it is satisfied it could not take extra action now. We have no power to tell the Council to use a different provider. We could not achieve more than the Council is already doing to review future core hours arrangements.
7. Mr V continues to live independently and commissioned from a different provider earlier in 2024 the care he needs regularly. We cannot investigate every complaint we receive and must focus using public money on the most serious cases, in the public interest. Any injustice Mr V may have suffered from the care he experienced from the core hours provider, privately or as part of the Council contract, has not been serious enough to warrant us investigating now. Nor could we likely say some events Mrs S and Mrs T report were directly a foreseeable result of any care provider’s actions.
8. I recognise Mrs S and Mrs T may continue to have concerns about the core hours provider. But we cannot consider what may or may not happen in future because we are not a regulator of care services. The Care Quality Commission is the regulator, and is better placed to police standards of care.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs S and Mrs T’s complaint for Mr V because any injustice in it is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve anything worthwhile by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman