Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to fund respite care for Mr X. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to fund her husband’s respite in a residential home following his discharge from hospital. She said the Council’s Social Worker failed to listen to her concerns about supporting Mr X return home and that Mr X had been left distressed following a conversation with the Social Worker.
2. Mrs X also said the Social Worker failed to make clear the respite placement would be privately funded.
3. Mrs X believes the Council’s actions have contributed to a decline in Mr X’s wellbeing. She wants the Council to provide financial compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was admitted to hospital in September 2021 after suffering a fall. Mrs X was also injured in the fall and suffered a broken arm.
8. A Council Social Worker assessed Mr X at the hospital with input from hospital staff. They assessed Mr X as able to return home with the support of the Council’s reablement service. The case records show the Social Worker spoke to Mr X about his support needs on discharge from hospital. He asked the Social Worker to speak to Mrs X.
9. The Social Worker spoke to Mrs X who did not want Mr X to return home whilst she was recovering from a broken arm. The Social Worker explained Mr X was not eligible for respite as he did not need 24-hour care. The case records confirm the Social Worker told Mrs X any respite care would be privately funded. The records show that Mrs X contacted a different staff member later that day and confirmed she had found a residential placement they were self-funding for three weeks.
10. Mrs X complained to the Council in October 2021 about the Social Workers communication with her and her husband. She questioned whether Mr X should have to privately fund his care.
11. The Council did not uphold her complaint. It confirmed it had offered Mrs X support in her own right to enable Mr X to return home. Mrs X had turned down that support. It explained it would not fund Mr X’s respite as it did not assess him as needing that level of support. It said there was no evidence Mr X was left upset following his conversation with the Social Worker.
12. We will not investigate this complaint further as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The case records show the Council did consider Mrs X’s care needs and offered support in her own right. It explained that Mr and Mrs X would have to fund residential respite. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Social Workers interaction with Mr X, as I was not there I cannot say what happened. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman