Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing her mother’s, Mrs D’s, care needs. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs B says if the Council had reviewed her mother’s, Mrs D’s care needs after two weeks as it should have done, Mrs D would have been able to return home with a package of care and her health and social care needs would not have declined to the level it did and she may not have needed full time residential care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council says Mrs D was transferred from hospital to a care home under NHS COVID-19 funding arrangements. It says Mrs D’s case was transferred to the wrong team which resulted in the delay in the relevant Social Work team being aware of the need to arrange a review. The review was requested on 7 September and forwarded to the correct team on 17 September. Mrs B was contacted on 28 September and a review arranged for the following day 29 September. The Council’s investigation highlighted the delay and incorrect transfer, and also acknowledged that Mrs B had not received a copy of Mrs D’s care and support plan. It apologised and advised Mrs B it has taken up concerns about timescales between allocation and contact and sharing of information with Social Work teams. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
7. Mrs B is concerned if the review had been carried out sooner, Mrs D’s health would not have deteriorated, and she would have been able to manage at home with a package of care. The Council explained prior to Mrs D’s admission to hospital there were growing concerns about her presentation and safety at home. While in hospital Mrs D had a Mental Health Nurse and a Mental Capacity assessment which determined Mrs D could not be supported safely outside of a residential setting.
8. The Council explained it is difficult to confirm whether the delay between Mrs D’s admission to the home and a review of her care needs exacerbated her situation regarding returning home and acknowledged COVID-19 precautions and restrictions of visitors may have added to her confusion. We could not make a different finding even if we investigated.
9. The Council confirmed Mrs D’s COVID-19 funding ceased and it had completed a care and support needs assessment. It advised Mrs D will need to contribute towards her care from 7 January 2021.
10. I understand Mrs B is pursuing NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding. It is not an administrative function of the Council to decide whether a person is eligible for CHC funding, nor can the Council decide not to provide CHC funding. In the absence of evidence from the NHS confirming Mrs D is eligible for CHC funding there is no fault with the Council for charging Mrs D for care it provides.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman