Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to arrange care and support for her mother at home to facilitate a discharge from hospital and about failing to complete a continuing healthcare checklist. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refused to arrange care and support for her mother at home to facilitate her discharge from hospital. She also complains the Council failed to complete a continuing healthcare (CHC) checklist to see if her mother was eligible for funding.

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 an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 X’s mother, Mrs Z was in hospital and ready for discharge. However, she required care and support. Ms X said Mrs Z wished to go home but the Council refused to arrange 24-hour care at home. Ms X said this level of need was assessed by the hospital.
6. Ms X said the Council only offered to fund a nursing home placement and that the Council was trying to force Ms X into a nursing home against her wishes.
7. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed that the discharge process was a multidisciplinary approach that requires assessment of an individual’s needs by various professionals. The Council explained that as commissioner of adult social care, it needed to complete a care assessment to identify the level of care an individual needed.
8. The Council also explained it had a duty to ensure effective use of resources and to ensure the best use of public funding. While it had a duty to meet eligible need, the Council had discretion to choose between different appropriate options.
9. The Council confirmed it did acknowledge residential care was not suitable, in line with the family’s wishes and preference. The Council said a decision was made to fund a care package via direct payments. The current direct payment is just over £2860 per week, with Mrs Z contributing just over £301 a week.
10. An investigation is not proportionate as there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. The Council explained why it initially offered a nursing home placement and why it originally declined to fund a care package at home. The Council was allowed to make this decision.
11. Since then, the situation has progressed, and the Council agreed that a nursing home placement is not suitable for Mrs Z, and exercise discretion to fund a care package at home instead. The Council has put in place direct payments to fund this care package at home to meet Mrs Z’s assessed care needs. An investigation could not achieve anything further.
12. Further, the Council has confirmed a CHC checklist will be completed. Any decision about whether Mrs Z is eligible for CHC is for the integrated care board to make.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman