The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Mr Y’s care and the way his carers communicated with him. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns and proposed a suitable alternative There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about her father Mr Y’s care. She says his carers did not communicate with him using sign language, the timing of visits was inconsistent and they did not complete his care appropriately. She says this caused Mr Y distress and contributed to him being re-admitted to hospital.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y was deaf. He was discharged home from hospital with a care package of four home visits a day from a care provider, commissioned by the Council. Shortly after Mr Y’s daughter, Mrs X, contacted both the care provider and the Council raising concerns about his care. She said Mr Y’s carers could not communicate with him using sign language and would not remove their masks so he could lip read. She said this was causing Mr Y stress and he was not engaging with his care.
The care provider said it had accepted the care package on the basis that carers could communicate with Mr Y using written communication. It said it could not provide carers who knew sign language and they could not remove their masks due to COVID-19 protocols in place at the time. The Council visited Mrs X and Mr Y and suggested Mr Y could request direct payments so Mrs X could commission a care provider with staff who used sign language. Shortly after the visit Mr Y was re-admitted to hospital where he later died.
Mrs X complained to the care provider about its communication with Mr Y and the quality of his care. The provider said its records showed it had followed Mr Y’s care plan on all but one occasion when it had been ten minutes late. It said it had told the Council as soon as it was aware of the difficulty in communicating with Mr Y.
We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. When the Council learned of Mrs X’s concerns it arranged a meeting shortly after and suggested direct payments. At the same time the care provider looked into Mrs X’s concerns about its care. Its records showed it had delivered Mr Y’s agreed care plan.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman