Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not sharing relevant information with care homes when sourcing a placement for her father. She says this led to care homes that were unsuitable offering him a place and forced the family to pay a top up fee to enable her father to attend the family’s preferred care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not share relevant information with care homes when sourcing a placement for her father. She says this led to care homes that were unsuitable offering him a place. As a result, the family are having to pay a £25 per week top up fee.

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 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s father, Mr Z, has care and support needs. The Council completed a care assessment to identify what Mr Z’s eligible care needs were. Mrs X was unhappy with the care assessment as it did not note Mr Z used a walking aid.
7. When sourcing a residential placement, the Council provided care homes with information about Mr Z’s care needs. This included information about his deteriorating mobility, shuffling gait, and bladder control issues. It did not reference the use of a walking aid.
8. Several care homes responded to confirm it could meet Mr Z’s needs at a cost of £900 per week. Mrs X did not consider these care homes to be suitable, mainly as she believed Mr Z would not be able to safely mobilise around the homes.
9. The care home Mrs X considered to be suitable for Mr Z cost £925 per week. As there were homes that could meet Mr Z’s needs at £900, the Council asked Mr Z’s family to pay a £25 per week top up to allow him to be placed at the preferred care home. Mrs X is unhappy at having to pay these top up fees and considers the Council should fund the preferred care home as she says this is the only suitable care home the Council found.
10. I have reviewed the care assessment and the information provided to the care homes. I am satisfied the information provided to the homes was accurate to the information contained in the care assessment. I accept there is no reference to the use of a walking aid. However, the care homes were aware of Mr Z’s deteriorating mobility and walking gait. Therefore, it is likely the homes would have considered their suitability in terms of Mr Z mobilising around the home.
11. While I acknowledge Mrs X has strong views that the other care homes are not suitable, we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision that the homes were suitable. This is because the Council followed the correct process in assessing Mr Z’s needs and providing accurate information to the care homes to consider their suitability. As there was no fault in the way the decision was made, we could not find fault with the decision itself.
12. As the Council had sourced care homes at the cost of £900 per week to meet Mr Z’s needs, the Council is allowed to ask the family to pay a third party top up fee to enable Mr Z to attend the family’s preferred care home instead. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman