The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident when a carer was providing a care service to the complainant’s father. This is because the extent of the injustice the complainant has suffered does not justify our involvement, it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s investigation and the Council is best placed to consider some of her concerns.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs B, complained about an incident which happened at a time when a carer was providing a care service to her father, Mr C. Mrs B said the carer failed to report the incident and the care provider has failed to provide the further information she had sought.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In this case the Council commissioned the care for Mr C.
Mrs B told us the carer is responsible for her father’s safety and for reporting any breaches and potential hazards. But she said the carer failed to report large cracks in a glazed door panel. Mrs B said to cause this amount of damage the panel must have been hit with a very sharp object or with intense force. She is concerned about the effect of this incident on her father’s safety and the lack of information the care provider has provided about what happened.
Mrs B complained to the care provider. When it replied to her complaint the care provider said the carer had not been aware of the damage and it could not determine the cause.
Mrs B told us what has happened has caused her significant anxiety for her father’s safety and security. She said she has lost confidence and trust in the care provider.
If the carer was unaware of the damage she would not have made notes about it during her visit. It is unlikely we would be able to add anything significant to the care provider’s investigation.
While Mrs B’s anxiety is understandable, the extent of the injustice she has suffered does not justify our involvement. If Mrs B is no longer satisfied with the care provider’s service, if she wants to raise a safeguarding alert and if she feels her father’s care plan should be reviewed, these are matters she could pursue with the Council. It is the body best placed to consider these concerns.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because the extent of the injustice she has suffered does not justify our involvement, it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s investigation and the Council is best placed to consider some of her concerns.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman