Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the way his previous care provider made him feel. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants. It would be reasonable for him to ask the court to consider his claim for damages and loss.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained he did not receive the care and support he needed in his supported living accommodation. Mr C says he felt bullied and intimidated by care staff which made him react verbally. Mr C feels staff did not take time to get to know him or make reasonable adjustments for him. Mr C says a list of his belongings was not made when he was evicted from his property and wants compensation for any lost and damaged items. Mr C wants an apology and an investigation into the Care Provider so no other vulnerable adult has to go through what he did.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider investigated Mr C’s concerns and found no evidence to substantiate his allegations. It said it sought to support him in line with his commissioned package of care which included a referral to the Council’s intensive support team, support planning, and risk assessment in conjunction with him, his family, and his Social Worker. It explained they were guided by the police and the Housing Association in response to anti-social behaviour which affected others at the address. The Care Provider says the concerns Mr C has raised with it have also been raised with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the police who found no evidence to substantiate his claims.
7. Whilst Mr C disagrees with the outcome of his complaint, further investigation by us could not provide him with a different response. We could not make a finding on how a person is made to feel by others. We were not present when Mr C felt he was bullied and intimidated by staff so could not say what happened. Mr C is concerned other may suffer the same as he has. Mr C has informed the CQC of his concerns who can consider them during its routine inspections.
8. Although the Care Provider did not substantiate Mr C’s complaints it apologised for any distress and upset he felt it had caused him. We could achieve no more than this.
9. Mr C says he should be compensated for damaged and lost items. Mr C can ask the Council to consider his claim. If the Council rejects Mr C’s claim it would be reasonable for him to ask the court to consider whether the Council is responsible for damaged and lost items. We cannot determine who was liable for Mr C’s lost and damaged items, only a court can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because we could not add to the outcome he has already received or make a finding of the kind Mr C wants. It would be reasonable for him to ask the court to consider his claim for damages and loss.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman