The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about how the care provider acting on behalf of the Council shared her mother’s personal information with family, decided to end its service and spoke to her father. I have ended my investigation. There is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice or fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complained about how the care provider acting on behalf of the Council: decided to end its service to her mother; contacted her father when she asked it not to and noted he was rude in its records; was rude to her during a phone call; and shared her mother’s personal information with her and her brother.
Miss X says this caused her, her mother and father significant anxiety, stress and meant she had to go to time and trouble contacting the care provider.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where a care provider 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered: all the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her; and the care provider’s response to her complaint.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened Miss X’s mother, Mrs Y, was receiving home care from May 2021 to March 2022. Towards the end of its service, Miss X complained to the care provider. She said: the care provider used a false justification for ending its services; during a phone call, she asked the care provider not to speak to Mr Y in future. Five days later it called him. She was also unhappy the care provider’s records noted Mr Y had been rude when they called; during the call when she asked the care provider not to speak to Mr Y, the member of staff was rude; and the care provider gave Mrs Y’s personal information to her brother without Mrs Y’s consent. She also said that when she made a freedom of information request for Mrs Y’s records, the care provider accepted Mrs Y gave consent over the phone without suitable identity checks.
The care provider responded to say: the family had asked for several changes of visit frequency and time which it had accommodated. They had most recently asked the care workers to visit at 08:30am. It was unable to visit at that time long term so had contacted the Council for it to find another provider; it had no record of the phone call where Miss X said a member of staff was rude and she asked it not to contact Mr Y. It only keeps phone call records for fourteen days. However, it apologised nonetheless if the employee was rude and said it had spoken to them. It would monitor that member of staff for a period of time; and it had no record of speaking to Miss X’s brother. When Miss X made an information request under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it asked Mrs Y for her consent. It called Miss X while she was with Mrs Y and then spoke to Mrs Y, who gave her consent.
When I spoke to Miss X she confirmed the care provider continued helping Mrs Y until the Council found a new provider. She said the information the care provider gave her brother about Mrs Y was an update. She confirmed there was no negative effects from her brother knowing that information and she had made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
Findings
The care provider’s response shows it ended its services to Mrs Y because it could not visit at the new time the family requested. It followed the correct process by contacting the Council and continuing to help Mrs Y until the Council found a new provider. It is unlikely further investigation would identify fault.
Miss X says a member of staff was rude to her in a phone call and ignored her request not to speak to Mr Y. The care provider does not have a record of the phone call so I cannot review it. In any event, the care provider apologised if the employee was rude and confirmed it spoke to them about Miss X’s concerns. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Miss X is also unhappy the care provider noted Mr Y had been rude when it contacted him. I would be unlikely to find fault with the care provider for noting its opinion of Mr Y’s behaviour.
Although Miss X is concerned the care provider shared Mrs Y’s information without consent or proper identity checks, she has confirmed sharing the information with her brother had no negative impact and she was in the room with Mrs Y when Mrs Y gave consent. There is no evidence that any fault resulted in significant personal injustice. At any rate, Miss X has complained to the ICO about her concerns. The ICO is the appropriate body to look at issues around sharing of personal information.
Final decision
I have ended my investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault or significant personal injustice and further investigation would not come to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman