Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council met her relative, Ms Y’s, care and support needs prior to her death. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to meet her relative, Ms Y’s, care and support needs prior to her death.

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. Ms Y received care and support from the Council. Following a hospital admission, Ms Y was discharged home in November 2023. The Council reassessed her needs as part of the discharge planning process. It reinstated her care package of four care calls a day to assist with daily living tasks and a two hour call once a week to support Ms Y to access the community.
6. Ms X complained to the Council in December 2023. She said it had failed to involve Ms Y’s family about the discharge arrangements, had refused their request for Ms Y to move to extra care housing, had not included shopping provision in Ms Y’s care package and the care package was insufficient to reduce Ms Y’s risk of self-neglect.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said Ms Y was deemed to have mental capacity and so it had not needed to involve family in discharge arrangements. It said hospital staff had recommended the same package of care be reinstated following discharge. It said her care package did not include shopping as it would always encourage the use of telephone or internet shopping where people were able to do so. Ms Y had 4 x care calls a day and 2 hours per week support to access the community which it considered sufficient to reduce the risk of self neglect. It said Ms Y did not meet its criteria for extra care housing. However due to the concerns Ms X raised, it would ensure family were involved in future care planning and, if necessary, it could reassess Ms Y’s needs.
8. In December 2023, Ms Y was readmitted to hospital. She died in March 2024.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appropriately assessed Ms Y’s needs as part of the discharge planning process and the care and support plan set out how the care package would meet her needs. Ms Y had mental capacity to make her own decisions and so it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision that it did not need to contact family at that time. Ms Y was below the minimum age set out in the Council’s extra care housing scheme criteria and so it is unlikely we would find fault it the Council’s decision Ms Y was not eligible. With regards to the risk of self-neglect, Ms Y had four care calls a day and the Council had also recommended a referral to Ms Y’s GP for mental health support as part of the discharge planning process. These are appropriate actions. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman