Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s discharge from hospital in 2020. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the contemporaneous records, to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
• failed to follow the Discharge to Assess (D2A) pathway at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic;
• moved her father, Mr Y, into a residential home in a hurried manner; and
• refused to consider Miss X’s complaint about the matter, despite her being unaware of the D2A pathway in 2020.
2. Miss X says this caused a financial burden and meant Mr Y later had to move to a nursing home, causing him significant confusion and the family significant distress. She wants the Council to backdate D2A funding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not normally investigate a complaint about historical matters. However, when the person complaining was unaware of the matter at the time of events, we may exercise discretion. Miss X was not aware of the D2A pathway in 2020.
8. We must also consider whether investigation may be impeded by the passage of time. This may be, for example, because of loss of evidence or changing context in terms of the relevant guidance applicable.
9. I have viewed the contemporaneous evidence available (information recorded at the time of events) to consider whether we would have a reasonable chance of coming to sound conclusions.
10. Mr Y was admitted to hospital in March 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government issued guidance on 19 March 2020, which was in place by the date Mr Y was ready for discharge. The guidance, ‘COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements’, stated at sections 2.5 – 2.6:
• “For patients whose needs are too great to return to their own home (about 5% of patients admitted to hospital) a suitable rehabilitation bed or care home will be arranged. During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients will not be able to wait in hospital until their first choice of care home has a vacancy. This will mean a short spell in an alternative care home and the care coordinators will follow up to ensure patients are able to move as soon as possible to their long term care home.
• “During the COVID-19 pandemic, all of the above support will be paid for by the NHS”.
11. The records made at the time of events showed Mr Y’s family were already considering 24 hour care before Mr Y’s hospital admission, due to his wife struggling with his needs at home. Miss X disputed this in 2024 when discussing her complaint with the Council, but she said while they would have liked Mr Y to have been able to return home, a care package would not have met his needs. I am satisfied there was not an expectation at the time of events that Mr Y would return home.
12. The records made at the time of events show the Council discussed the need for a quick discharge with the family, who understood and were in agreement due to the COVID-19 outbreak making this necessary. Miss X has raised retrospectively that this was too rushed. However, there is no evidence from the time of events that Mr Y’s family intended to move him to a different placement or that they felt the home chosen for him was not suitable for his needs. Miss X has raised retrospectively that she believes Mr Y required further assessment after being discharged from hospital. However, the contemporaneous evidence does not support a view that the home the family chose was not suitable for Mr Y or that they were concerned about further assessment being needed at the time.
13. Miss X contacted the Council nearly a year later, asking for reassessment due to the home no longer being able to meet Mr Y’s needs. The contemporaneous evidence shows this was due to a decline in Mr Y’s needs. There is no evidence this was due to the wrong type of placement being recommended in the first place, or that Mr Y required further assessment in March 2020.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, from the evidence we could consider if we decided to investigate the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman