Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his mother’s care and support. He says the Council harassed the family to send his mother into a care home and misled them into thinking it was just for respite care. He also complains the Council failed to consider his mother’s wishes and that the care home was inadequate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his mother’s care and support. He says the Council harassed the family to send his mother into a care home and misled them into thinking it was just for respite care. He also complains the Council failed to consider his mother’s wishes and that the care in the home was inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s mother, Mrs C, had a wound which needed care. The advice of the district nurse was for complete bedrest for Mrs C and for the use of hoist when moving Mrs C. Mrs C also received support from carers at home.
6. In December 2022, a safeguarding concern was raised about the care Mrs C’s family was providing to her. This was due to the family moving and handling Mrs C without using the hoist, and walking Mrs C to the commode. As a result, Mrs C’s wound was not healing.
7. The Council held a best interest meeting to decide how to proceed due to the concerns. Two options were considered, for Mrs C to go to a care home as a respite placement or for Mrs C to remain at home.
8. The records showed the Council spoke with Mr X regarding the concerns about the family not following the care instructions given by the district nurse. It was also recorded that Mr X disagreed with the Council’s position that Mrs C should go to a care home for respite and that he wanted Mrs C to go to hospital. The district nurse explained to Mr X that the risk of infection to Mrs C was too high for her to go into hospital, as well as the fact she was not acutely ill. The decision was made for Mrs C to receive respite care in a care home.
9. We are unlikely to find fault with the way the Council made its decision to place Mrs C in respite care. This is because the evidence shows the decision was made following a best interest meeting. This was the correct process given Mrs C had been assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions about her care and support needs. Records also showed the Council was clear to the family that the placement was only for respite. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
10. Records from the care home showed Mrs C received the care as advised, including being turned every two hours. An investigation is therefore not justified as we are unlikely to find fault with the level of care provided by the care home.
11. Following a period of hospitalisation, the Council held a further best interest meeting to decide where Mrs C should be discharged to. It was agreed by professionals that Mrs C now had 24-hour nursing care needs.
12. The record showed Mrs C was spoken to regarding her views and that she noted she wanted to stay in respite care. However, it was noted Mrs C lacked capacity to make decisions about her care and support. The Council also sought the view of the family, who noted they did not want Mrs C to return to the previous care home. A decision was made for Mrs C to be discharged to a nursing home and for Mrs C to be assessed to decide her long-term care needs.
13. Therefore, it appears likely Mr X feels they were misled by the Council on the care home being for respite only due to Mrs C subsequently being sent to another care home. However, the evidence shows this decision was made due to Mrs C’s care needs increasing as she now required 24-hour nursing care. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman