The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s handling of her grandmother’s care. The Care Provider has investigated Miss X’s concerns, upheld her complaint, apologised and offered to waive care and cancellation charges. We could not add to the Care Provider’s responses by investigating the matter further.
The complaint
Miss X complains on behalf of her grandmother, Mrs Y, about a Care Provider her family commissioned for domiciliary care. Miss X complains the Care Provider: wrongly obtained Mrs Y’s signature for its contract when she lacks capacity; did not complete a full care visit for Mrs Y as instructed; gave incorrect information about cancellation charges; failed to respond to call back requests from Miss X.
Miss X says the experience has caused significant distress to Mrs Y and her daughter, Miss X’s mother. She wants the Care Provider to provide further compensation in recognition of this.
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: 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by: their personal representative (if they have one), or someone we consider to be suitable. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Care Provider has responded to the elements of Miss X’s complaints listed in paragraph 1 above under its three-stage complaint procedure. It has accepted staff did not follow usual procedure of obtaining signatures from Mrs Y’s attorney (Miss X’s mother) for its contract and direct debit agreement. It also invited Miss X to provide further evidence around the length of time the carer spent on their first visit to Mrs Y. The Care Provider apologised for initially giving Miss X’s mother with wrong information about the cancellation process. Mrs Y’s family appears to have decided to cancel the contract with the Care Provider after one care visit. The Care Provider confirmed it would be waiving care charges for the visit and the cancellation fee of £100 in recognition of the injustice caused by its faults in Mrs Y’s case. It also explained the action it was taking to learn and improve from Mrs Y’s experience.
Miss X believes the Care Provider’s offer to waive charges does not go far enough to remedy the injustice caused to her mother and grandmother. The Care Provider has considered and declined Miss X’s request for more financial compensation. We typically recommend small remedy payments in recognition of injustice rather than awards for damages in the way a court might. It is therefore unlikely we would consider further financial remedy is appropriate in this case given its circumstances and the offer the Care Provider has already made.
We will not normally investigate a complaint which a Care Provider has already comprehensively investigated and responded to. It is not a good use of public money to do so. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the investigation the Care Provider has carried out. There is nothing to suggest that it would do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation could add to the Care Provider’s responses and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman