SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the health and social care partnership’s (HSCP) investigation of a medicine protocol breach identified at their relatives (A) care home in the week before A's death. A social worker investigated the breach in response to an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) notice raised by the care home, and determined that no further action was required. Separately, the Care Inspectorate had investigated other concerns raised by C about the care and treatment provided to A, including the medicine protocol breach. The Care Inspectorate’s investigation identified failings and made recommendations for improvement. In light of this, C contested the partnership’s position, indicating their view that the investigation was faulty, particularly noting the outcome of the Care Inspectorate’s investigation of the same matter. C received a stage two complaint response letter from the partnership. We considered the response had not fully considered C’s concerns, therefore, we asked the partnership to provide a further response to C’s complaint. C remained dissatisfied with the partnership’s second response. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the partnership had a duty to investigate the concerns raised in keeping with ASP legislation. We noted that this matter had been investigated by a single social worker. However, we found that the Care Inspectorate were better placed to investigate the matter in keeping with the Health and Social Care Standards, with the partnership’s role being to liaise with the Care Inspectorate and the care home regarding the outcome and recommendations. While the social worker’s report was in itself reasonable for an inquiry, we found that it was better suited to be used in collaboration with the other relevant agencies. We upheld the complaint. We also upheld a complaint about complaint handling, noting that C had not been made aware that their concerns were being managed in line with the complaint hand

C complained on behalf of their client (A) about Fife Health and Care Partnership's (HSCP) assessment of A’s needs and the level of support being provided by the HSCP. A is registered blind and has a number of other health conditions, including diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage) requiring A to use a wheelchair. C complained to the HSCP that support previously available for C to access the community or go shopping had been withdrawn. C also believed that the HSCP operated a blanket policy not to fund services to support service users to access the community or go shopping. In response to the complaint, the HSCP said that the arrangement to go shopping was via an unregistered cleaner and that the Care Inspectorate identified issues with this, and the worker was removed. They explained that a worker taking A shopping was not deemed as critical care criteria, that they could not offer funding for it and that alternative options were not taken up by A. We took independent advice from an adult social work adviser. We found that, whilst there was evidence that the HSCP undertook an assessment of A’s needs, the assessment was unclear about what needs were assessed as being critical and substantial, and therefore eligible for funding. We also found that the Assessment and Support Plan failed to offer sufficient detail about the discussions with and options available to A with respect to the support available. We upheld the complaint that the assessment of A’s care plan was unreasonable. With respect to complaints made about the operation of a blanket policy, it was noted that a number of statements and comments in A’s case notes and assessments gave the impression that this may be the case. However, whilst we found failings with respect to the assessments in this case, there was no evidence available which demonstrated that the HSCP operated a blanket policy not to fund access to social supports or the community. We did not therefore uphold this aspect of the complai

Allegations were made against C that they entered into inappropriate financial arrangements with clients to whom they provided homecare services. C complained about the way that the partnership conducted the investigation into those allegations and the impact this had on them and their business. In terms of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 Code of Practice (the Code of Practice), we found that the partnership had a clear responsibility to determine whether service users of C's company were at any risk when dealing with C. Any investigation into the actions of C or their staff would be matters for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) or the Care Inspectorate. We considered that when the partnership were made aware of the allegations against C, they quickly commenced inquiries with C's clients under Adult Support and Protection legislation, and in line with the Code of Practice. These inquiries led them to conclude that there was no immediate risk to the service users and no further action was necessary. However, given the nature of the allegations and advice from the police, the partnership considered it appropriate to notify the SSSC and the Care Inspectorate. We found this to be reasonable. It was the SSSC, rather than the partnership, that investigated the allegations against C and accordingly we would have expected the SSSC, rather than the partnership, to notify C of these allegations and seek evidence from them. That said, we considered the partnership's communication with C could have been better and that a lot of correspondence could have been avoided, had the partnership explained their role and the decisions they make more clearly to C from the outset. On balance, we upheld C's complaint. During our investigation, the partnership told us that they had learned from what occurred with C. They explained they had set up a joint operational Social Work, Adult Support and Protection, Care Inspectorate and Police sub-group to pro

C is the welfare and financial guardian to A who requires residential care. C complained to the Care Inspectorate about the service A was receiving at the care home in which they reside. The Care Inspectorate upheld C's complaints and made a requirement and recommendation for improvement. C later complained that these had not been implemented, however the Care Inspectorate did not uphold this complaint. C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate failed to take into account the evidence they provided in support of their complaint. The Care Inspectorate confirmed that all of C's concerns were taken into account and they had noted that some improvements were being made by the care provider. We found that the Care Inspectorate failed to satisfactorily address the detailed evidence submitted by C in support of their complaint. While it was not unreasonable to note that some improvements had been made by the care provider, we considered that if the Care Inspectorate had reviewed C's evidence in detail, they could not have reached the conclusion that the provider had met the requirement and recommendation. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received from a care home in the Stirling council area. Mrs C removed Mr A from the care home back to his family home. Mrs C had become increasingly concerned about Mr A's welfare in the care home and its suitability for a person with Mr A's particular needs. After Mr A returned to the family home, Mrs C complained about the care home to the Care Inspectorate who then investigated. When the council became aware of the Care Inspectorate report and findings they contacted Mrs C for more information. Subsequently the council initiated an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) Investigation using their authority under the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. The council investigation reported several months later and concluded that there was no evidence that Mr A was at risk of harm. Mrs C was unhappy with the conclusions of the council's report and also the quality and scope of their investigation. Mrs C complained to the council but remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the terms of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 only apply where a person is at possible risk of harm. By the time the council became involved, Mr A was living back at home and there was no suggestion he was at risk of harm, and so they should not have conducted their investigation as they did. We also found that the investigation did not properly consider and test all the evidence available and did not use an appropriate standard of proof (looking for near certainty rather than a balanced decision). We also found that the investigation of Mrs C's complaint by the council had not properly considered all of her concerns. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. We noted that the council had previously provided us with evidence of changes it had already made to its processes and training of staff. We made a number of furth

Mrs C complained that after an inspection by the Care Inspectorate of the care service she runs was carried out, she was not given sufficient information regarding how to improve. She also complained that the Care Inspectorate failed to reasonably investigate her complaint. We found that there was evidence that the Care Inspectorate had given Mrs C substantial feedback after the inspection and was offered further advice and support from both the inspector and team manager. We did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the Care Inspectorate handled Mrs C's complaint in line with their complaint handling procedures and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201811044 as a PDF (23.63 KB) Updated: November 20, 2019

Mr C complained to the Care Inspectorate (CI) about the care provided to his late mother in a care home. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the CI's findings and complained further about their investigation. The CI confirmed that they were satisfied that their procedures were followed correctly. We found that even though evidence could not be found to corroborate Mr C's complaints about his mother's care, the CI thoroughly investigated Mr C's complaints in line with their procedures. They carried out an unannounced visit to the care home, examined the care home records and interviewed all relevant witnesses. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805594 as a PDF (23.61 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019

Mr C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had published an inspection report on his nursery that was inaccurate. He stated that there were a large number of errors in both the draft report and the final published report. We found that although there had been errors in the draft report, there was a process in place to correct these and the corrections had been made in line with this process. Mr C said that a number of discussions referred to in the inspection report had not taken place, but there was evidence in the inspector's notes that a number of these issues were discussed. We found one minor error in the report in relation to snacks being provided by the nursery and asked the Care Inspectorate to amend this. However, other than this point, there was no evidence that the report was inaccurate and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also complained that the Care Inspectorate had failed to reasonably investigate and respond to his complaints. Whilst we were critical of the confusion caused by the comments made by a manager at a meeting with Mr C, we were satisfied that when Mr C subsequently requested clarification in relation to this matter, this was provided to him. We did not consider that another senior member of staff had misinterpreted the Care Inspectorate's own guidelines in an attempt to justify a requirement in the draft report, or that this member of staff's actions had been unreasonable when he met Mr C to discuss his complaint. We also considered that the Care Inspectorate had carried out a reasonable investigation into Mr C's complaint and we did not uphold his complaint to us about this matter.

A nursery was inspected by the Care Inspectorate. Following production of the draft inspection report, the nursery contacted the Care Inspectorate to raise concerns about the inspection process. These concerns were addressed initially by the inspector's line manager. The nursery were not satisfied with the response received and they instructed their representative (Ms C) to raise a complaint on their behalf. As well as raising concerns about the inspection process, Ms C complained about the way in which the nursery's initial concerns were dealt with. In particular she questioned the appropriateness of the line manager's role in the complaints process in light of their role in the inspection process. She also complained that the Care Inspectorate interviewed the inspectors as part of their complaints investigation but did not interview nursery staff. In addition, Ms C raised concerns that the Care Inspectorate delayed in responding to the nursery's complaint. We identified areas where the Care Inspectorate had failed to respond to the complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure (CHP). While we did not consider it inappropriate for the line manager to have dealt with a complaint at stage 1 of the CHP (frontline resolution), we noted that the initial concerns were not dealt with under the CHP. As the concerns fitted with the Care Inspectorate's definition of a complaint, we considered that they should have been addressed in line with the CHP. We noted that the nursery initially indicated that they did not wish to formally complain; however the CHP contains provision for such a situation and the Care Inspectorate did not follow this. We noted that it is often good practice when carrying out interviews to interview both parties to a complaint. However, we were satisfied that the Care Inspectorate gave appropriate consideration to doing so and reasonably concluded that it would not have brought value to their investigation of this particular comp

Ms C owns a childcare business. She initially set the business up with her daughter (Miss A) and registered the partnership with the Care Inspectorate. Miss A subsequently left the business and Ms C's son (Mr A) joined as her partner. This partnership change came to light during a routine Care Inspectorate inspection visit. Ms C was advised that the registered partnership (of her and Miss A) was no longer valid. She would have to de-register and re-register the new partnership with Mr A. It took several months for this to happen, during which time Ms C was uncertain as to the status of her business. She had been advised by her insurers that if she did not have a valid registration, her insurance would be invalid. Despite attempts to clarify the situation with the Care Inspectorate, Ms C was unable to do so and she had to close her business for two days while the re-registration was completed. We found that Ms C was appropriately advised to de-register and re-register. However, the information she was given regarding her company's status in the meantime was unclear. Whilst the Care Inspectorate had clarified the situation internally, they advised Ms C to seek legal advice and to confer with her insurers. Whilst this advice was not unreasonable, we were disappointed with the lack of a clear answer from the Care Inspectorate as to whether or not Ms C's company was currently registered with them. As the industry regulator and the organisation responsible for registering care services, we felt this was poor. We were also critical of the Care Inspectorate's handling of Ms C's formal complaint.

Mrs C complained about two inspections at the residential care home her mother (Mrs A) lived in. Mrs C felt it was unreasonable for the Care Inspectorate to say in their inspection report that the privacy and dignity of residents could be compromised when bedroom doors were left open. Mrs C said Mrs A preferred to have her door open so she could see what was going on and chat to visitors and passers-by. She said inspectors could have discovered this by speaking to her mother. Mrs C said the Care Inspectorate's response to her complaint failed to take into account one of the inspection reports she complained about. We found the Care Inspectorate had agreed a list of six complaints for investigation with Mrs C. It was for the investigator to decide what weight to give different pieces of evidence. We found the Care Inspectorate made their position in respect of Mrs A's bedroom door very clear. They recognised that Mrs A's preference was to have her door open. However, this should have been discussed and recorded in Mrs A's care records, which it was not. They accepted that the report could have been better worded. Mrs C said it had taken the Care Inspectorate too long to log and respond to her complaint. We found Mrs C's complaint was appropriately logged and acknowledged. The Care Inspectorate acted in accordance with their complaints procedure in meeting with Mrs C, in an attempt to resolve her concerns. At the end of the meeting, they quite reasonably checked whether Mrs C wanted to progress to the investigation stage. However, it took too long to respond to Mrs C's complaint at each stage of the process and we upheld Mrs C's complaint on the basis of delay. Related reading View Decision Report 201403259 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the Care Inspectorate about the care home her father was staying in. She complained about a range of issues, including how often bedding was changed, concerns about electric reclining chairs, and the lack of a care plan for her father. The Care Inspectorate responded to her complaints (they upheld one of her complaints, but did not uphold the others), and Ms C then complained to us that they had failed to properly investigate her complaint. Our investigation examined whether or not the Care Inspectorate followed their normal process in investigating Ms C's complaint, and whether or not they clearly informed her of the outcome. We found that they followed their complaints handling procedure properly. They acknowledged Ms C's complaint and issued a decision within the appropriate timescales, and informed her of her right to request a review. When she made this request they reviewed their decision and, again, issued her with a final decision within correct timescales. It was clear from the information provided to us that the Care Inspectorate planned and carried out a comprehensive investigation, and communicated their findings clearly. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407618 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the Care Inspectorate about a care provider used by his mother. He was not satisfied that they investigated his complaint effectively, as he said they had not responded to all his concerns. He also had ongoing correspondence with them after they completed their initial investigation and complained that they did not handle this reasonably. Our investigation found that the Care Inspectorate had thoroughly investigated the issues Mr C raised in his complaints, and responded to each of them. They did not respond to every individual query that he brought to them, but we considered that they took a reasonable approach to their handling of his complaints. We did, however, consider that after their initial investigation they were not clear enough in their correspondence with Mr C. The should have provided him with consistent information about his complaint and what to do when he was still not satisfied with the outcome.

Ms C is the head of care at a service providing education and care for young people with additional support needs. A council who placed young people there complained to the Care Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) about the service. The council was unhappy with the outcome of the Inspectorate's investigation, on the basis that a number of key individuals had not been interviewed, and requested a review. The Inspectorate received another complaint from a former service user at this time, which was investigated alongside the review. The outcome of the review was that all of the council's complaints were upheld. Most of the former service user's complaints were also upheld. Ms C then complained to the Inspectorate about the way in which they handled both investigations. She felt that in their review the Inspectorate went beyond the remit of the original investigation, by interviewing staff not relevant to the council's original complaint, and that they took irrelevant information as fact. She was also dissatisfied that one of her colleagues was not interviewed, despite allegations being made against him. Ms C also said that when she was interviewed, the Inspectorate failed to complete their paperwork in line with their procedures. The Inspectorate partially upheld two of Ms C's complaints. They apologised for some inaccuracies and said that their outcome letters could have been clearer. Although they did not consider that this affected their overall findings, they amended both outcome letters. Ms C was unhappy with the way in which they investigated both her complaints and complained to us. We considered that the Inspectorate had broad discretion about who they interviewed and the judgements they made on evidence obtained from their investigations. We considered that the individuals interviewed were appropriate and related to the matters under investigation. We also found no evidence to show that the Inspectorate did not consider information put forward by th

Ms C complained that the Care Inspectorate unreasonably delayed in dealing with her complaint, which was related to her late brother sustaining a serious injury whilst receiving 24-hour care. Ms C was unhappy that they did not explain why there had been a delay, and that they failed to explain what matters were outwith their jurisdiction and why. We considered that taking a year to investigate Ms C's complaint was unreasonable even although the Care Inspectorate had experienced difficulties in agreeing all of the issues to be investigated. We upheld the complaint, although we did find that after this they conducted a thorough review of how they had handled Ms C's complaint, to ensure that they adopted a more cohesive and coordinated approach towards future complaints. They also identified a number of factors that impacted on the time taken to respond. Whilst the Care Inspectorate had acknowledged that there was a delay in progressing their investigation, we also found that Ms C was not told about this or the reasons for it until she contacted them. We were critical that it then took a further four months for them to clearly explain that they were unable to look into an aspect of her complaint.

Ms C complained about the Care Inspectorate's handling of an investigation into a complaint made about her nursery, which had been upheld. In particular, she said that they failed to deal with the investigation within the timescales allowed, failed to deal with the complaint in a reasonable manner and did not conduct the investigation according to their guidelines. She also said that they published their decision on their website following the investigation, although she had submitted a complaint about their handling of the complaint. During our investigation we found that, in line with their procedures, the Inspectorate had communicated with the parent who had made the complaint about the timescale for completion of the investigation. However, they accepted that they should have told Ms C that the investigation was not going to be completed within the timescales detailed in their procedures and should have apologised for this. We were satisfied that the Inspectorate had considered and responded to Ms C's concerns about how they had dealt with the complaint about her nursery. In addition, we noted that, as a result of Ms C's concerns, they had agreed to reopen the parent's complaint for a further full investigation to allow further information to be sought, and had decided to set aside the regrading that had been applied following the complaint. However, we were concerned that there had been a delay in removing the regrading information from their website.

Mr C was accused of acting inappropriately when visiting his mother in a care home. He was dissatisfied with the care home's investigation into the incident and complained to the Care Inspectorate. They agreed to investigate two elements of Mr C's complaint, focusing on the care home's application of their policies and procedures, rather than the incident itself. They were satisfied that the care home had followed their procedures appropriately when investigating Mr C's complaint and deciding what action to take. Mr C complained that the Care Inspectorate's investigation was not thorough and demonstrated a bias towards the care home. We found that the Care Inspectorate had ruled out all aspects of Mr C's complaint that related to the incident at the care home, but we considered that decisions about the extent of their remit for investigating complaints were a matter for their discretion. We were satisfied that they had given due consideration to their governing legislation when reaching this decision and that the conclusion they reached was reasonable. That said, we were critical of the explanation they gave Mr C about why certain aspects of his complaint were ruled out. Mr C had raised a number of concerns about the incident and how it had been handled, and he was not given a detailed explanation as to why the Care Inspectorate's investigation reports did not address these concerns. We were satisfied that the investigation did not have a bias toward the care home, but we felt that the report could have better acknowledged Mr C's side of the complaint.

Mrs C, who is an advocate for carers, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs A), who had complained to a care provider about the support provided to her late brother. Mrs A was unhappy with the care provider’s response, and complained to the Care Inspectorate about the provider. She was not happy with their response either, and asked Mrs C to complain to us that the Inspectorate unreasonably failed to follow their investigation procedure in dealing with her complaint. We looked at the information provided by Mrs C and Mrs A, as well as the Inspectorate’s records of their investigation. Mrs A disagreed with the outcome of the investigation, but that was not evidence that they had done anything wrong. We found evidence of a well-planned and structured investigation, with specific questions asked and evidence obtained from Mrs A and the care provider. We also found that the Inspectorate considered the evidence but could not establish the facts that gave rise to Mrs A’s complaint. Having reviewed the investigation, and compared it with their procedures, we found no evidence that the Inspectorate failed to follow the procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201302003 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to the Care Inspectorate after an incident when her young son was left unattended by his registered childminder. They told her that they had already been in the process of investigating this, because of an earlier complaint about the incident from a member of the public. However, during the process the childminder had voluntarily cancelled her registration and so they now could not investigate further, as they said they were not legally allowed to do so. Mrs C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had failed to establish the facts of her complaint and thoroughly investigate it. We found that the Care Inspectorate had thoroughly investigated the other complaint and had upheld both aspects. The childminder had admitted her failings and, in their regulatory capacity, the Care Inspectorate had taken appropriate action that led to her voluntarily cancelling her registration a week before Mrs C complained. Because this had happened, and because she was not registered when Mrs C complained, the Care Inspectorate were in fact unable to investigate. We did not find this position unreasonable and did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300796 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a visitor to an elderly friend (Ms A) in a care home. He was concerned about her welfare and raised questions about this, but they were not answered and he was told he was no longer welcome to visit. He complained to the Care Inspectorate, who looked into the matter, but then told him that they were satisfied that matters had been handled properly and that his complaint was not something they could look at. They said that they had been in touch with social services and the welfare guardian with power of attorney for Ms A, and neither had expressed any concerns about her care. Mr C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had unreasonably failed to answer his concerns about Ms A. After investigating the complaint, we were satisfied that the Care Inspectorate had properly looked into Mr C's concerns, and were, in the circumstances, quite correct in not providing him with information about Ms A. He is not related to her and she has a welfare guardian with responsibility for her wellbeing and her affairs. We noted that the welfare guardian, who is regarded as speaking for Ms A, had said that they did not want Mr C to visit again. Related reading View Decision Report 201300331 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C's mother had received care services through her local council for a number of years, but these were suddenly withdrawn. Miss C complained to the council and also asked the Care Inspectorate to investigate. The Care Inspectorate investigated four complaints about the council's termination of Miss C's mother's care arrangements and upheld two of those complaints. Miss C was, however, concerned about the way this was investigated, and how the available evidence was used. She asked that they review their decision on two of her complaints. She then complained to us about delays in the Care Inspectorate's handling of her review request and about the lack of any action being required of the council when her complaints were eventually upheld. We found that, although there were certainly delays in reinvestigating Miss C's complaints, the investigation generally progressed reasonably and communication with her about the cause of the delays was good. The delays were caused by matters that were largely beyond the Care Inspectorate's control. That said, we were critical of the length of time that they took to decide that the two complaints should be reinvestigated. We upheld the complaint about the delay in investigating, but were otherwise satisfied with the Care Inspectorate's actions in terms of notifying the council of their revised decision and following up on the action they asked the local authority to take on the issues highlighted by their investigation.

Mr C is the manager of a facility catering for young people which is subject to regular inspection, initially by the Care Commission and, since 1 April 2011, by the Care Inspectorate. His complaint related to an incident that occurred during an inspection by Care Commission officers when he queried the lead officer's authorisation to inspect documents relating to one of his employees. As a result of the inspection, Mr C's facility was given what he considered to be ridiculously low gradings. Mr C complained that the Care Commission's inspection and subsequent report into his facility had been inadequate and that the Care Commission and Care Inspectorate failed to adequately handle his complaints. Our investigation found that the Care Commission had followed their normal inspection process and the process of sharing their draft inspection report. We found no evidence of inadequacy in the handling of Mr C's complaint by the Care Commission or the review of complaint handling by the Care Inspectorate. Related reading View Decision Report 201101546 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C and Mr C were unhappy that the Care Inspectorate had refused to investigate their complaints. They had told Ms C and Mr C that that the complaints were out of time, were not appropriate for the complaints procedure and were not complaints about the Care Inspectorate. Ms C and Mr C had felt that there were reasons why the complaints should be considered outwith the normal time limit. Our investigation found, however, that the Care Inspectorate had considered the exceptional circumstances Ms C and Mr C put forward, and had explained why, despite these, they had decided that the complaints were out of time, as they were entitled to do. We also found that they had clearly explained why one of the complaints was not suitable for the complaints procedure and why one was suitable for the review procedure (which Ms C and Mr C had in fact used).

Mrs C complained on behalf of herself and on behalf of her niece and nephew (Mr and Miss A) who were receiving social care services from the council. Mr and Miss A lived with their mother who was their main carer. When their mother was admitted to hospital, they were left without support. The council arranged for a care provider to provide care at home to Mr and Miss A in the form of help with cooking, washing and dressing while their mother was in hospital. Unfortunately, Mr and Miss A's mother passed away shortly after the council put these services in place. The council then reassessed Mr and Miss A as needing additional help with personal care, managing finances, carrying out domestic tasks, daily living skills and sleepover care. Mrs C told me that she had a number of problems with the care provider which she raised with the council, including one incident when she says they failed to renew home insurance for Mr and Miss A, resulting in them having to pay £700 for repairs following a leak. Mrs C complained about the care provider to the Care Inspectorate who told the council that the care provider was not registered to provide housing support services (such as assistance with managing bills, protecting the home and learning life skills). The Care Inspectorate issued a report upholding Mrs C's complaint against the care provider, and criticising them for a number of matters including how they had dealt with Mr and Miss A's finances. The council immediately arranged for a new care provider to provide services to Mr and Miss A. When we investigated, the council acknowledged that the care provider had been providing a care service to Mr and Miss A that they were not registered to provide. Section 99 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 obliges councils to ensure that their services are appropriately registered at the time they are provided. As the council had failed to do this, we upheld this complaint. We welcomed the evidence that the council

Ms C, a childminder, complained about the Care Inspectorate’s decision to uphold a complaint that she did not have a safety net on a trampoline used by the children in her care. She said that this had not been pointed out on previous inspections. The law says that we cannot question discretionary decisions reached by an organisation where there is no evidence of administrative error. We found no evidence of administrative fault or service failure by the Care Inspectorate in reaching the decision to uphold this complaint. We were, therefore, unable to question the decision. We also considered that it was appropriate for officers from the Care Inspectorate to raise any legitimate concerns that came to their attention that had not been picked up on previous inspections. Ms C also complained that the Care Inspectorate ignored documentation she provided from the parents of all the children she minded. This indicated that they had always been aware that the trampoline did not have a safety net and were still happy for their children to use it. We found that the Care Inspectorate had considered this documentation. It was for them to decide how much importance it should be given. However, we found that the Care Inspectorate had failed to respond to all of the points in Ms C’s complaint about their handling of the matter. They had also delayed in responding to this letter. They had, however, since issued a response that we considered appropriate and had apologised for the omission, so we did not make any recommendations about this. Related reading View Decision Report 201102066 as a PDF (17.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018