Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care and the cost of care provided to Mrs C by her care provider. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms D wants.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained on behalf of her aunt Mrs C. Ms D says Mrs C’s care provider failed to provide her with appropriate care and increased care fees from £1400 to £1700 a week when it should have reduced fees given Mrs C was not receiving the all-inclusive care package she had agreed to. Ms D wants to Care Provider to properly account for the overcharging and compromise on the outstanding debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider responded to Ms D’s concerns about cleanliness of the property, storage of Mrs C’s continence wear and her food and fluid intake. It explained Mrs C managed her own food and fluid and weight remained stable. It explained the cleaning regime in the home and repainted the wall in Mrs C’s room following Ms D’s complaint. The Care Provider investigated Ms D’s complaints and responded to them; we could not add to this even if we investigated.
6. The Care Provider explained the reasons for the increase in fees and further investigation by us could not make a different finding. Ms D asserts Mrs C was not receiving the full all-inclusive care during and after the pandemic so she should not be expected the pay the full costs. The Care Provider explained activities continued during this time although there were restrictions on what it provided, Ms D decided whether she wanted to engage and join in and was encouraged to do so by staff.
7. Ms D withheld Mrs C’s care fees and the Care Provider gave notice to quit. We could not say the injustice caused to Mrs C having to move out of her home was caused by the Care Provider’s actions. I understand Mrs C is now settled and happy in her new home.
8. It is not for us to decide what fees are owed or what proportion of care fees Mrs C should pay. As Mrs C’s attorney for property and finances, it is Ms D’s responsibility to ensure payment for Mrs C’s care fees. The Care Provider has advised Ms D of the outstanding amount Mrs C owes.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because we could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms D wants even if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman