The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for its care provider’s failure to provide agreed respite care and to respond to Miss B’s complaint in a timely manner. Miss B’s injustice from the lack of respite care has already been remedied. But the Council has also agreed to arrange an apology to Miss B for the complaint response delay, and to arrange for the care provider to develop a template to use when responding to future complaints.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, is a full-time carer for her mother.
In December 2021 Miss B arranged a respite carer to look after her mother for eight hours so she (Miss B) could travel to London to meet a friend.
The carer did not turn up to work, and provided no advance notice of this either to Miss B or the care provider. This meant Miss B could not go to London, so wasted almost £100 on train tickets.
Miss B also says she suffered distress from not being able to see her friend (who was only in the UK for a very short period). She says she has lost faith in care services.
In her complaint to us, Miss B asked for an apology, an explanation for the carer not showing up, and the reimbursement of her unused train tickets.
Although the company providing the respite care – Unisus Group Limited – is a private provider, Miss B’s mother’s care was arranged by the Council and therefore the care was being provided on behalf of the Council. As a result, the body I am ultimately investigating is the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Miss B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened The day after the carer had failed to come and look after Miss B’s mother, a family friend made a complaint to Unisus (rather than the Council). The friend explained what happened and set out, at length, the impact the previous day had had on Miss B.
The following day, a Director of Unisus responded to Miss B’s friend. She said she regretted the upset and inconvenience caused to Miss B. She said the worker had failed to turn up to work and had failed to notify the on-call system that she would not be turning up, so they could not arrange cover in advance.
The Director said this was an unusual situation and one which would be dealt with through Unisus’ staff management procedures (although the details could not be shared outside the organisation). She said she would refund Miss B’s unused train tickets.
Two days after this response, a different Director wrote to Miss B directly and apologised for the impact this matter had had on her. He reiterated that he could not share details of disciplinary matters, but told Miss B that they were dealing with things appropriately.
In early January Miss B’s cousin made a further complaint, largely along the same lines as the earlier complaint. She alleged significant injustice to Miss B and suggested a service user could die if something similar happened in future. She ‘demanded’ copies of Unisus’ policies and procedures concerning scenarios in which carers do not turn up to work.
In early February Unisus emailed Miss B and asked her for copies of the train tickets she had been unable to use in December.
Later in the month, Unisus exchanged emails with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which asked it for documents about this matter. It told the CQC that it had already decided not to respond to Miss B’s cousin’s complaint, because it had nothing further to add.
The following month Miss B provided copies of her train tickets, and Unisus responded with a cheque. It said it would not respond further.
My findings
The incident Given that the problem here is that a carer failed to either turn up to work or warn anyone about it in advance – and Miss B had received this explanation within two days of it happening – there appears little I can add. It is difficult to imagine what more of an explanation Unisus should have been expected to provide.
It also appears that Unisus dealt with this matter through its disciplinary procedures. It was correct to say that this could not be discussed with Miss B, so I have found no fault with this approach.
When Miss B approached us she asked for an explanation, an apology and a refund of her train tickets. She has already had all three, so I do not consider a further remedy appropriate.
The handling of Miss B’s complaint Although the actual complaints to Unisus were made by third parties, they were made on Miss B’s behalf – and they concerned her injustice – so I have treated them as her complaints.
When Miss B’s cousin made the second complaint in January 2022, Unisus decided it had nothing further to add, and therefore the complaints procedure was over. This was its decision to make; but its failure to notify Miss B (or her cousin) of this for two months meant the complaints procedure went on for longer than it needed to. This was an unnecessary delay and was fault, for which the Council should arrange an apology to Miss B.
When Miss B did receive Unisus’ final response, it was less than two lines long, did not refer to any aspect of her complaint and failed to refer her to the Ombudsman.
This caused Miss B no injustice, as she had already received a satisfactory response and had approached us. But a similar approach to final complaint responses may cause problems in the future. The Council should ensure that action is taken to sort this out.
Agreed actions
When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I have found fault with the actions of Unisus, I have made recommendations to the Council.
The Council has agreed to arrange an apology to Miss B for the delay to Unisus’ final complaint response.
The Council has also agreed to arrange for Unisus to develop a standard final complaint response template letter, for use in responding to all formal complaints. Examples of template letters, and complaint response guidance, are available on the Ombudsman’s website. The Council has agreed to provide us with a copy of this template when it is completed.
The Council has agreed to complete these actions within four weeks of this decision statement.
Final decision
The Council was at fault for Unisus’ failure to provide agreed respite care and to respond to Miss B’s complaint in a timely manner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman