Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, and the Council is rightly keeping the decision under review. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the wanted outcome of telling the Council how it must meet the person’s needs.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council is prioritising costs over her relative, Mr D’s, wellbeing. Ms C wants Mr D to stay living at his current care home.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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.
6. I considered the Care Act 2014 and the associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr D lives in a care home, which he arranged and pays for privately. Mr D has approached the Council for help because his funds to pay privately are decreasing.
8. The Council has a duty to assess Mr D’s care and support needs and to meet eligible social care needs. The Council has assessed Mr D has eligible needs which are best met in a residential care home.
9. When deciding how to meet someone’s needs the Council can consider its finances and budgetary position as a factor. The Council has decided it can meet Mr D’s needs at a cheaper care home than where he lives. Where this is the case, the Ombudsman expects the Council to consider the impact on a person’s wellbeing to decide whether a move would be possible.
10. The Council’s assessment shows it first thought it was in Mr D’s best interests to stay at his care home. The Council then got confirmation from a healthcare professional that a move would not be detrimental to Mr D’s health and considered its finances. The Council decided it would meet Mr D’s needs at another care home. The Council has tried to negotiate the rate with the current care home and has offered for Mr D to stay there if a third party will top-up the cost, but these are not available options in this case.
11. It has been several months since the Council decided to move Mr D. The Council is keeping the matter under review and was recently going to complete another reassessment of Mr D’s needs and plan on how to meet needs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. The Council has followed the correct process to assess needs and considered relevant factors when deciding how to meet needs. The Council can take costs into consideration when deciding how best to meet someone’s needs. The Council has considered the impact of a move on Mr D when making its decision.
13. While I appreciate Ms C’s concerns about the impact of moving Mr D the Ombudsman cannot achieve the desired outcome of saying Mr D must remain at the current care home. This is the Council’s decision to make, and in the absence of fault in the process the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the decision even though Ms C strongly disagrees with it. The Council is rightly keeping this decision under review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman