Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to move Mrs X into a nursing home and its decision she was a full cost-payer. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions, including its financial assessment of his wife (Mrs X) and its decision to place her into a nursing home. He said Mrs X was being treated as a full cost-payer, but they were experiencing financial difficulty.

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))
3. 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

The best interests decision about moving Mrs X into a nursing home

6. Mr and Mrs X lived at home together until late 2023, when the Council made a best interests decision that Mrs X should move into a nursing home. Mr X was recorded as accepting this decision, although said he would naturally have preferred her to remain at home.
7. The record of the Council’s best interests decision shows it considered the benefits and burdens of Mrs X staying at home with a care package and moving into the nursing home. It took account of how changes in Mrs X’s dementia were impacting her behaviour towards Mr X, and considered there was a risk of breakdown in Mr X's caring role and in Mr and Mrs X’s relationship. The Council had regard to the impact of moving into care on Mr and Mrs X’s human rights.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this assessment. The Council properly considered the decision, and where there is no fault in how a council has made its decision we cannot question the outcome.

The assessment of Mrs X’s finances

9. In October 2023, Mr X signed a form saying Mrs X had capital over the maximum threshold of £23,250, and that he understood this meant she would pay the full cost of her care. Given this, the Council did not carry out a financial assessment. This is not fault.
10. In April 2024, Mr X complained to the Council saying Mrs X had not been financially assessed and he queried whether she should have been paying for her care.
11. Mr X told me the couple had paid over £50,000 so far towards Mrs X’s care. This supports that Mrs X did have capital over the maximum threshold at the time Mr X signed to say this was the case.
12. Given that Mrs X’s capital has since reduced to under the threshold, the Council told Mr X it would carry out a financial assessment, and it would consider as part of this whether its contributions towards Mrs X’s care should be backdated, and thus refunded to Mrs X.
13. The Council has completed its financial assessment since Mr X contacted the Ombudsman. Any dispute as to the outcome of that assessment, or the date at which Mrs X’s capital fell below the threshold, would need to be raised as a new complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman