Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about care provided to her late father, Mr C. This is because Mr C is now deceased so any injustice caused to him from the Council’s actions cannot be remedied. Mrs B can ask the NHS to undertake a retrospective Continuing Health Care assessment and any injustice caused to Mrs B from the Council’s actions has been remedied.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained to the Council about its failure to provide her late father, Mr C, with emergency care and its failure to provide him with one-to-one care when his care provider said he needed this level of support, Mrs B says Mr C lost three stone in weight and charged Mr C for care she understood would be free. Mrs B says the Council should cancel the invoice for Mr C’s care charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. 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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mrs B and considered the information and documentation she and the Council provided. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B complained to the Council about is failure to provide Mr C with emergency respite care and about the standard of communication she received.
5. The Council says Mrs B contacted the emergency duty team over the weekend of 28-29 March concerned about the deterioration in her parents, Mr and Mrs C, their health and the imminent death of Mrs C. The Council says it was not possible to find a home to meet Mr C’s care needs until Monday 30 March. The Council apologised for this and explained it attempted to find a suitable placement but there were non available. It said if Mr C had been in danger it would have found emergency accommodation, but explained, this may have been anywhere in the County, which then would have required him to move again to be closer to family members. The Council explained the emergency duty team need to ensure the safety of vulnerable adults which can mean they are not able to respond to calls as quickly as families would want. The Council recognised this may be frustrating at what is an already difficult time for families. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be able to make a different finding on this point.
6. Mrs B complained that Mr C’s care provider said he needed one-to-one support but the Council refused to provide this.
7. The Council says the care provider’s request for additional support was declined and the care provider advised to contact Mr C’s GP and fast track an application for CHC funding, which if approved, would have allowed for additional intensive resources from healthcare specialists. The Council says there is a record of the care provider contacting Mr C’s GP but there is no record of the outcome of the contact.
8. We could not say the Council should have agreed to provide one-to-one support when the care provider requested it. Sadly Mr C is now deceased, so any injustice caused to him by fault which an investigation might uncover cannot be remedied now.
9. Mrs B says she was not informed about care charges and says the Council should have completed a CHC checklist and applied for NHS funding sooner.
10. The Council says Mrs B was in contact with the social care and finance team from March and recognised this was a difficult time when she was dealing with the imminent death of her mother and having to arrange a temporary residential stay for her father. The Council says invoices for Mr C’s care were sent to his home address. It acknowledged there is no record of Mrs B having been told charges will apply from when he first went into residential care and agreed to waiver charges for the period 30 March to 26 April. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B from the Council’s failure to tell her of the charges Mr C should pay for his care.
11. The Council says records show Mr C’s care provider agreed to start the process for applying for CHC funding but unfortunately this did not take place before Mr C passed away on 27 May. The Council explained Mrs C can make a retrospective application for CHC funding.
12. It is the CCG’s decision whether to award CHC funding. Mrs B can apply for a retrospective assessment as advised. Information about the NHS CHC funding can be found on the website below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-nhs-continuing-healthcare-and-nhs-funded-nursing-care

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr C is now deceased so any injustice caused to him from the Council’s actions cannot be remedied. Mrs B can ask the NHS to undertake a retrospective Continuing Health Care assessment and any injustice caused to Mrs B from the Council’s actions has been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman