Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with her request to move her father to a different care home. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice as its delay caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms A and make service improvements to ensure the fault is not repeated.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains about the way the Council dealt with her request to move her father to a different care home when she was concerned about the care he was receiving. Ms A says she and her family were left traumatised by the standard of care he received in the final months of his life.
2. Ms A wants the Council to follow the correct procedures in the given circumstances going forward.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. This investigation is only about the actions taken by the Council and has not considered the care provided by the care home.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms A and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms A and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. Ms A’s father, Mr X lived in a care home from October 2021. The Council partly funded his fees, and Mr X paid an amount toward this.
11. In September 2023, Ms A became concerned about her father’s health and the care he was receiving at the home.
12. Ms A contacted another home closer to where she lives and told the Council that home had confirmed it could meet her father’s needs and were happy to accommodate him.
13. At the end of September, Ms A contacted the Council and asked if her father could be transferred to the other home as she had serious concerns about his care. The Council told her she could transfer him and pay for his care privately, allow the Council to source an alternative home which it had a relationship with, or go ahead with the home of her choice in which case the Council’s Charging Policy would apply.
14. Three weeks later, the Council appointed a social worker to assess Mr X’s needs and ensure he also wished to be transferred.
15. 18 days later the social worker completed her review and updated Ms A. The social worker said the head of service would have to approve the transfer, and she had requested this. The social worker also said she would be on annual leave for the next 17 days.
16. 17 days later, Ms A emailed the social worker to tell her how worried she was for her father and to explain that he no longer had funds to maintain the payments he had been making toward his care.
17. Three days later, the social worker confirmed the Council would now start the process of transferring Mr X.
18. Ms A responded to let her know that Mr X had been taken into hospital. He passed away in hospital days later.

Analysis and findings

19. When Ms A contacted the Council in September 2023, she said she had visited her father after two weeks and had been alarmed at his condition. It was clear at this point that she was worried about her father’s health.
20. The Council took a total of 60 days from Ms A’s request that her father be transferred until it confirmed it would begin the process of transferring him.
21. During this period, the social worker went on holiday without confirming to Ms A that the matter would be progressed in her absence or providing her with a contact in her absence.
22. Although the Council was correct to ensure Mr X also wished to be transferred, and that the alternate home could meet his needs, the time taken here is excessive. We would expect the move to be completed within four to six weeks, so 42 days. The delay here is fault.
23. Although we cannot remedy any injustice to Mr X, the fault identified has caused an injustice to Ms A. She was in communication with the Council, and made it clear she believed her father should be moved urgently as she was worried staying where he was had serious health risks for him. Ms A was left to worry about this over a longer period than necessary, and for some of this time she did not have a contact at the Council who could update her.
24. Where we find fault, we consider what would have happened if the Council had acted as we would expect. In this matter, Mr X may have been transferred to the home of Ms A’s choice. Given the severity of his condition by that point, on the balance of probabilities, he would still have been hospitalised. We cannot say the ultimate outcome would have been any different.
25. I must also consider the fact that Ms A is likely to have worried for her father going through the disruption of the move in his condition and would have initially been concerned as to the standard of care he would receive in the new home.
26. On this basis, it is very difficult to say that Ms A would have been saved a significant amount of worry or distress even if the Council had moved Mr X without delay. On balance, although the Council caused distress, Ms A is likely to have been distressed in any event.
27. Having weighed this up, I recommended the Council apologise to Ms A and carry out service improvements to avoid a similar circumstance in future.

Back to top

Agreed Action

28. Within one month, the Council will apologise to Ms A. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
29. Within three months, the Council will review the timeline of this matter, identify all avoidable delay and share its learnings with relevant staff. The importance of dealing with transfer requests efficiently, especially where there are safeguarding concerns should be emphasised.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman