Introduction

In many situations local services are provided on behalf of councils by third-party organisations. 

Councils can sub-contract out their services, but not their responsibility for them. 

They remain ultimately responsible for services commissioned to another organisation to deliver on their behalf. Councils should maintain sufficient oversight of the actions of third-party contractors to ensure the council is meeting its duties.

Adam’s story: Commissioned care providers giving unsafe treatment 

(Case ref: 21 013 987)

Adam has a learning disability which affects his ability to make certain decisions for himself. He lives at a residential care home run by a care provider, but commissioned and funded by the local council. 

Adam’s parents complained that he was excessively and unnecessarily given sleeping tablets. In responding to their initial concerns, the care provider said that Adam’s GP had prescribed the medication to take ‘when needed’, but it had directed its staff to give it every other night to sedate him. This lasted for seven months.    

What we found

We found Adam received  unfavourable and unsafe treatment, which Adam received because of his learning disabilities. We found this treatment impacted on his right to a private life (Articles 14 and 8 of the Human Rights Act). The care home failed to formally apologise to Adam for over 12 months after the events, and its communication with the family lacked empathy or contrition. 

We therefore found the council had ultimately failed to take account of Adam’s human rights when it provided this care. 

Putting it right 

We also found evidence of good practice. When the council became aware of the issues, it started a safeguarding investigation into the care home, and contacted the Care Quality Commission to ensure that things changed for the better. This led to improvements in the way the care home treated adults with disabilities, and in the way it responded to complaints. 

The council also made positive changes to the way it monitored its third-party contractors. This demonstrated a council proactively using complaints to improve its services for others. In addition to these steps, the council agreed to make a payment to the family for the avoidable distress they were caused. 

Diane’s story: Poor oversight of third-party contractor

(Case ref: 20 002 492)

Diane complained to the council about new large litter bins it had installed across its area. She said the bins were not a suitable height for disabled people, small adults and children and that a degree of strength was needed to lift the lids. Diane said the bins breached disability discrimination legislation and they did not meet government guidance.

What we found

The council said the decision to install the large bins was taken around four years ago and was managed by the company who at the time held the contract for waste and recycling. The council therefore had no information about how the decision was made. This called into question whether the council, or its contractors, had properly considered their public sector equality and reasonable adjustment duties.

Putting it right 

The council agreed to apologise to Diane and publish its Local Environmental Quality Plan. This set out its approach to providing litter disposal infrastructure, including how it would have proper regard to its public sector equality and reasonable adjustment duties.