The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him no notice that his care provider was changing. The Council was not at fault. It told Mr X as soon as it had arranged a new care provider, which was the day after the care provider gave notice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council gave him no notice that his care provider was changing, and it failed to properly explain what was happening. In addition, the social worker refused to have a zoom meeting with him and a staff member from the day centre to discuss this. Mr X says this caused him distress and frustration.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information provided by Mr X and have discussed his complaint with him on the telephone.
I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of the decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.
What I found
Mr X has a learning disability and health conditions. Mr X has high levels of anxiety related to his conditions. Mr X receives a support package through a care provider, care provider A, and attends a day centre two days per week.
What happened In early February 2022 care provider A contacted the Council to advise two of the regular staff members who supported Mr X were leaving and it did not have the staff available to provide all Mr X’s support the following week. It had been advertising for staff for six months without success. It said it had difficulty finding agency staff to cover short periods of care and therefore gave notice on the care package.
The Council arranged for a new care provider, care provider B, to support Mr X. The social worker spoke with care provider A who agreed it was best to tell Mr X what was happening. The social worker telephoned Mr X at the day centre the next day to tell him about the changes and arranged to meet with him the day after.
The social worker met with Mr X with the new care provider, care provider B. A staff member from care provider A was also present. Mr X wanted a staff member from the day centre to attend the meeting but they could not attend in person. The social worker arranged for them to join the meeting virtually and sent them a link. However, this did not work. The social worker explained care provider B would support Mr X in the mornings and care provider A would continue to support Mr X at other times. Care provider B would take over fully from mid-March.
The social worker phoned the day centre officer later that day, apologised that they could not join the meeting and updated them about the meeting.
Mr X complained to the Council about the handover from care provider A to care provider B. Mr X felt he should have had written confirmation of the change. Mr X’s MP contacted the Council.
The Council wrote to Mr X’s MP. It explained care provider A gave four weeks’ notice in early February but it could not provide morning calls from the following week to Mr X due to staffing levels. The social worker had immediately taken action to secure a new care provider, care provider B, who would cover the morning calls and later the full care package. It apologised for the impact this had on Mr X but was satisfied it had taken all the steps it could to get a new care provider as soon as possible. It advised the social worker would review the care package and would offer continued support to Mr X.
Care provider A started Mr X’s morning care visits three days after the meeting. Mr X reported this went well.
The day centre officer contacted the social worker later in February as they were concerned about how Mr X was dealing with the changes. They explained Mr X wanted care provider A to leave as soon as possible. He was finding it difficult having lots of different care workers. The social worker spoke to care provider B who agreed to provide Mr X’s full care package five days earlier than scheduled.
A senior manager also telephoned Mr X to discuss the changes. They explained care provider A was struggling to provide staff so care provider B had agreed to take over.
Findings
Care provider A gave notice on the care package as it did not have enough staff to support Mr X. The social worker immediately sought and found an alternative care provider. The Council ensured Mr X did not miss out on care provision and updated him as soon as possible about what was happening. It was not at fault.
The Council tried to include the day centre officer in the meeting with the care provider but was unable to make the technology work. The Council updated the officer after the meeting, at Mr X’s request. and kept them informed about what was happening. The Council was not at fault.
Mr X has found the change very difficult. The Council recognised this. The social worker has sought to keep Mr X updated, has contacted him regularly in response to concerns he raised and has liaised with the day centre and care provider B.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman