Summary: Mr B complained NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (the ICB) refused to either assess his father’s eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare in hospital or provide him with interim NHS funding for the nursing home placement he was discharged to. And he complained about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to charge his father, Mr G, for his initial care and support at the nursing home. We find fault with the ICB’s approach. It relied on aspects of national guidance but ignored other parts. Without this fault it would have funded Mr G’s care from the point of discharge. We also found fault in the ICB’s and the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr G left a Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) hospital in mid‑October 2024 and moved into a nursing home. Around a month later NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board determined Mr G was eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) and began paying for his placement. Mr G’s son, Mr B, complains:

• The ICB wrongly refused to either: assess Mr G’s eligibility for CHC while he was in hospital; or, provide interim NHS funding for Mr G’s nursing home placement from the point he left hospital until CHC funding started; and,
• Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to financially assess Mr G, and charge him for the care he received during this period, was wrong.

2. Mr B also complains there was an excessive, unjustifiable delay in the organisations’ responses to his complaints. Further, Mr B said the organisations have still not explained or adequately justified their decisions and actions.
3. Mr B said the ICB’s actions avoidably delayed Mr G’s discharge from hospital. Mr B said this left Mr G exposed to the risk of harm. And Mr B said the situation caused the family significant stress and an avoidable emotional strain during an already difficult time.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
6. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
7. When investigating complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that during an investigation, we will weigh up the available evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
8. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. 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, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, sections 3(4)- 3(7))
9. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the organisations that are the subject of the complaint, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr B, the Council, the ICB and the Trust. I have also considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr B, the Council, the ICB and the Trust all had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Hospital discharge

12. The government’s Hospital Discharge and Community Support Guidance 2024 (the Discharge Guidance) said that local areas should adopt discharge processes that best meet the needs of the local population. It said this could include the “discharge to assess, home first” approach which had been used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance also said that funding to support discharge could be pooled across health and social care.
13. The Discharge Guidance notes that it is “best practice that any assessment of longer-term (ongoing) needs should be anticipated and initiated during a person’s recovery journey but not fully completed until the person has reached a point of recovery and stability where it is possible to make an accurate assessment”.
14. It also states that “When it becomes apparent that someone may need support from social care services to aid their discharge and recovery, NHS trusts should inform the relevant local authority of this need as early as possible in the person’s hospital stay, to allow local areas to co-operate on the person’s discharge planning.”

Trust Discharge Policy

15. The Trust discharges patients via four pathways. The first two (pathways 0 and 1) are for patients who can return home, with or without support. Pathway 2 is for patients who need rehabilitation, assessment, care planning or short-term intensive support somewhere other than their own home. And pathway 3 is for people who are to be discharged to a care home for the first time and for complex discharges.
16. The policy notes that “If an existing package of care is deemed to continue to meet the patients’ identified needs it may be restarted”. (page 11)
17. The policy also notes that “A full assessment for NHS continuing health care funding (CHC) will only be undertaken in hospital where the longer-term needs of the patient are clear, and only when a patient has a rapidly deteriorating condition which may be entering a terminal phase”. (page 12) (I have included this as a direct quote from the Trust’s policy, but I do not know whether the “and” after “where the longer-term needs of the patient are clear,” is an error, and the authors had intended this to be an “or”. Under this text it appears that only people with a rapidly deteriorating condition which may be entering a terminal phase would be entitled to a full CHC assessment in hospital. However, the terms of Fast Track CHC funding, which is for patients in this cohort, mean a full assessment is not required.)
18. In addition, the policy notes “Where an individual may require a decision regarding eligibility for CHC before hospital discharge – such as that they require a complex package of care or placement to meet complex needs, there may be the requirement to consider them for Continuing Healthcare prior to discharge by completion of a CHC Checklist.” It continues that a Checklist “must be completed for all patients who have…a potential primary healthcare need following Multi‑Disciplinary Team (MDT) assessments.”

National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care (the National Framework)

19. CHC is a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded by the NHS where a person has been assessed as having a “primary health need”.
20. The National Framework notes, at paragraph 26, that a council must refer people to the relevant ICB where it appears they may be eligible for CHC. This is because, as detailed in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the National Framework, there are lawful limits to the care and support councils can arrange for people.
21. For most people who may be eligible for CHC, the first step in assessment is for a health or social care professional to complete a CHC Checklist. The threshold for “passing” the CHC Checklist is set low. If the completed CHC Checklist indicates the person may be eligible for CHC, the next step is a full multidisciplinary assessment.
22. Paragraphs 100, 101 and 104 of the National Framework note that, in most cases, people’s eligibility for CHC should be screened and assessed when they are in the community and their needs are clear.
23. Paragraphs 105 of the 106 note that a person’s discharge from hospital should not be delayed by funding considerations. It notes that “In order to ensure that unnecessary stays on acute wards are avoided, there should be consideration of whether the provision of further NHS-funded services is appropriate”. It notes this might “include intermediate care or an interim package of support”. It also says that:

“interim services should continue until it has been decided whether or not the individual has a need for NHS Continuing Healthcare…There must be no gap in the provision of appropriate support to meet the individual’s needs. It is important that there are clear local protocols setting out where responsibility for meeting an individual’s needs lies, including who is responsible for funding their care and support”.

24. Paragraph 107 says ICBs and partner organisations “should ensure appropriate processes and pathways exist for individuals who may have a need for NHS Continuing Healthcare”. For example, when “a ‘positive’ Checklist is completed in an acute hospital and interim NHS‑funded services are put in place to support the individual after discharge until it is either determined that they no longer require a full assessment…or a full assessment of eligibility for [CHC] is completed.”

Adult social care and charging

25. Local authorities have a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs who do not receive CHC funding.
26. Section 14 of the Care Act 2014 gives local authorities discretion to choose whether to charge for services they arrange and provide.
27. Where a local authority decides to charge it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay towards their care. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014. Local authorities should also have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance that accompanies the Care Act 2014.

Relevant events

28. Mr G has multiple health conditions. He lived at home with his wife. In May 2024 he had begun to receive some Council-commissioned support at home. Mr G went into hospital in August 2024. Professionals determined he did not have the capacity to decide where to live and how his needs should be met. In late‑September 2024 there was a best interest meeting. This decided Mr G should move to a care home when he left hospital.
29. Efforts began to identify a care home which would be able to meet Mr G’s needs. Soon after the best interest meeting, the Council gave Mr G’s family a financial assessment and asked them to complete it.
30. A care home said it believed it would be able to meet Mr G’s needs. It asked for confirmation of how Mr G’s placement would be funded in the first instance.
31. Mr G’s family asked professionals to either:

• assess Mr G’s eligibility for CHC while he was still an inpatient; or,
• arrange interim NHS funding for Mr G’s placement, to cover the cost of the placement from the point Mr G moved in until his eligibility for CHC was determined.

32. The ICB did not agree to either of these requests. The Council continued to insist on the need to complete a financial assessment to determine whether Mr G would need to pay for the full cost of his care or a contribution toward the cost.
33. Mr G moved to the nursing home (the Placement) in the middle of October 2024, around a week after it confirmed it was willing to accept him.
34. Around two weeks later, in early November, professionals assessed Mr G’s eligibility for CHC. The team recommended he was eligible. In the middle of November the ICB confirmed it had accepted the professionals’ recommendation and that Mr G was eligible for CHC. CHC funding began paying for Mr G’s care 26 days after Mr G left hospital.
35. In February 2025 the Council wrote to Mr G. It said it had calculated that Mr G would need to pay the full cost of his care and support for the period from when he left hospital until CHC-funding began. The Council issued an invoice in the middle of March 2025.

Complaints process

36. Mr B complained about the ICB’s failure to either:

• establish Mr G’s eligibility for CHC while he was an inpatient; or,
• provide interim funding until it could determine his eligibility for CHC in the community.

37. Mr B also complained about the Council’s decision to insist on a financial assessment and its decision to charge Mr G for the cost of his placement. Further, Mr B complained professionals placed undue pressure on Mr G’s family to agree to this financial assessment prior to his discharge from his hospital.
38. The ICB acknowledged Mr B’s complaint in late October 2024 and said it had begun its investigation. It said it aimed to respond within 55 working days. The Council launched an investigation of its own.
39. The Council responded to Mr B at the end of April 2025. The ICB responded on 27 August 2025. Mr B made a follow-up complaint and received the ICB’s final response in late October 2025.
40. The Council said professionals could have submitted a CHC Checklist earlier, after the best interest meeting. It apologised for this and said it would feedback to the team. However, the Council said that this may not have meant an earlier award of CHC.
41. The Council said ‘discharge to assess’ provision is “considered for individuals who are clinically ready for discharge but require some additional time to reach their full rehabilitation potential and to maximise their independence, usually to return home”. The Council said it had already been decided, while Mr G was still in hospital, that Mr G needed a particular type of long-term placement because of his complex care and nursing needs. The Council said, because of this, professionals decided to discharge Mr G under Pathway 3 to a short-term placement, rather than to a ‘discharge to assess’ placement.
42. The Council said it was not at fault in pursuing a financial assessment. The Council said that as soon as it became aware that Mr G might need care and support it had a duty to assess Mr G, including his finances.
43. In its responses the ICB said it refuses to accept CHC Checklists for hospital inpatients until an onward care package has been arranged for them. It said it does this because it only completes full CHC assessments in the community and if it got the Checklist too early it would eat into its 28‑day target to complete the assessment. The ICB also said Mr G had an existing care package. This related to Mr G’s newly arranged care home placement, having come into hospital from living at home.
44. The ICB said Mr G did not meet the criteria for ‘discharge to assess’ provision in the area. It said this is only for people whose needs may change and there is uncertainty about what long-term care they will need. The ICB said in Mr G’s case professionals had already decided what type of long-term care he needed.
45. The ICB did not identify any fault in its actions. It said CHC funding can only begin once an assessment has determined the person has a primary health need.

Analysis

Decision not to provide interim funding and to charge Mr G for his care

46. The National Framework and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance both note that councils should refer people to the relevant ICB if they consider the person may require CHC.
47. Both pieces of guidance also note the limits to the type of care councils can legally arrange and provide. This is why they must refer people for a CHC assessment.
48. As the ICB has highlighted, guidance cautions against completing CHC Checklists or full assessments too soon, if a person’s needs are not settled and/or they have not reached their full potential for improvement. This is particularly highlighted in situations where the person is a hospital inpatient. The Discharge Guidance notes that “Other than in exceptional circumstances, no one should be discharged directly into a permanent care home placement for the first time without first giving them an opportunity to recover in a temporary placement before assessing their long-term needs.”
49. In the ICB’s area the only ‘discharge to assess’ provision available is for people who are deemed likely to be able to benefit from rehabilitation. There is no such provision for people who are deemed to have no potential for improvement. That is, those people whose needs are settled enough and understandable enough that professionals can decide what type of long‑term care and support they will require.
50. This was the case for Mr G. Professionals unanimously agreed that there would likely be no significant change to Mr G’s needs after he left hospital:

• At the point of deciding Mr G was medically stable enough to leave hospital a doctor recorded their view that Mr G would “need to be discharged to a placement with EMI”.
• At the same time an occupational therapist (OT) said Mr G needed one-to-one support and help with all activities of daily living.
• The Trust notified the Council of Mr G and it noted the plan to discharge Mr G under pathway 3.
• At the start of October 2024 the Psychiatric Liaison Service said Mr G would benefit from 24-hour EMI nursing care.
• In the middle of October 2024, while Mr G was in hospital, the Council noted that the professionals involved believed Mr G had a primary health need and was likely to be eligible for CHC funding.

51. Overall, the professional view about the type and extent of post-discharge care Mr G needed did not change from the point of him becoming medically stable to when he left hospital. Professionals consistently said he would need 24-hour care in an appropriately authorised nursing home to keep him safe and meet his needs. Professionals did not consider Mr G would benefit from rehabilitation or any other form of time-limited input.
52. Despite not providing interim ‘discharge to assess’ funding for this cohort of service users, the ICB also has a blanket policy of refusing to accept CHC referrals for them until other organisations have arranged onward care and support for them. The ICB’s justification for this policy is that, without it, its resources would be under undue pressure to complete full CHC assessments in the community within 28 days of receipt of the referral. I.e. that if it took, for example, a further seven days to arrange and start a community placement, the ICB would be left with only 21 days to complete its assessment.
53. This puts the ICB’s resources and targets ahead of the needs of its service users. This policy approach is fault and not in line with the National Framework or the Discharge Guidance. This is because it prevents the Council from fulfilling its responsibility to advise the ICB of patients who are likely to be eligible for CHC as soon as possible. And, it avoidably delays the CHC assessment process for service users.
54. In addition, in a complaint response the ICB quoted from paragraph 135 of the National Framework which relates to the duty not to leave people without appropriate support while awaiting the outcome of a CHC assessment. Paragraph 135 says that “If, at the time of referral for [a CHC] assessment, the individual is already receiving an ongoing care package (however funded) then those arrangements should continue until the ICB makes its decision on eligibility for [CHC]”. The ICB said that, in Mr G’s case, “his care package was already arranged when he was referred for an assessment for CHC funding.”
55. However, it is worth noting here one of the consequences of the ICB’s policy of rejecting Checklists where onward care has not been arranged. The ICB’s approach makes it impossible for other organisations to refer people for a CHC assessment, via a Checklist, unless they have already left hospital, or they already have an onward package of care in place. This means patients who are not eligible for ‘discharge to assess’ services, like Mr G, will always be considered to have an existing package of care in place, so that other organisations can refer them to the ICB to start the CHC process. It is clear that the National Framework intended “existing package of care” to refer to people who return to the same care arrangements that were in place before they went into hospital. Therefore the ICB’s decision that Mr G already had an existing package of care was taken with fault as it is not in line with national guidance.
56. Where the National Framework guides professionals not to complete Checklists in hospital, it does so on the basis that doing a Checklist too early risks assessing the person when their longer-term need are unclear. However, in this case, all parties accepted that Mr G’s needs were identifiable enough to be able to decide what level of long‑term care he needed, while he was still in hospital. The Discharge Guidance is clear that this type of decision – about the person’s long‑term care – should only be taken in a small number of circumstances. Nevertheless, it is included in the guidance because there will be circumstances, in a small number of cases, where it is appropriate. It is clear from the contemporaneous records that a variety of professionals felt confident in making this judgement about Mr G. This determination, about the level and extent of Mr G’s needs, is why Mr G could not access ‘discharge to assess’ funding.
57. From the ICB’s responses it appears to have a set policy of not completing CHC assessments while people are inpatients. This follows from its rationale for rejecting Checklists in order to maximise the amount of time it has to arrange and complete assessments in the community. However, there is nothing in the Discharge Guidance which would prevent the ICB from completing assessments in hospital as and when that is appropriate and practical. Section 8 of the Discharge Guidance specifically includes the option of completing CHC assessments in hospital where appropriate.
58. Based on the available evidence, it appears more likely than not that an inpatient CHC assessment would have been possible and appropriate in this situation. This is because, as referenced above, there was a unanimous, multi-disciplinary view that Mr G’s needs would not significantly change and that it was possible to reach an informed view on the type of long-term care and support he required.
59. Overall, the ICB appears to have implemented policies which place service users with chronic, unimprovable conditions in a financially worse position than those with potential for recovery or change in their needs once outside the acute hospital environment. On the one hand the ICB is relying on, and adhering unwaveringly to, guidance about not assessing a person’s needs too soon, and avoiding assessments in the inpatient environment. In short, the ICB is saying it will not assess people in the inpatient environment because this is too soon and needs may change. It is failing to properly consider the individual circumstances of each individual when making its decision about whether to carry out an early assessment.
60. But, on the other hand, the ICB appears to be ignoring guidance about the need to facilitate interim care and support to allow time for peoples’ needs to settle. In this instance the ICB justified its decision not to offer interim care and support for the opposite reason that it will not complete inpatient assessments: because Mr G’s needs were settled and known and would not improve through a ‘discharge to assess’ placement.
61. So in Mrs G’s case it is using contradictory reasons not to assess him sooner; that his needs need to settle, but also that his needs were settled so he was not eligible for ‘discharge to assess’ funding.
62. The Discharge Guidance notes that, while it is highly preferable for assessments to take place in the community, there is discretion around this. It notes that “There may be rare circumstances where assessments for NHS continuing healthcare may take place in an acute hospital environment. The core underlying principle is that individuals should be supported to access and follow the process that is most suitable for their current and ongoing needs”. The National Framework also notes, at 107(e), that full assessment may sometimes be completed in hospital.
63. The ICB concluded the “exceptional circumstances” test was not met in Mr G’s case. However, this does not appear to have taken the specific circumstances of Mr G’s case into account. Specifically, the multi-disciplinary agreement that his long-term care needs were known and would not change, and that it was likely he would be eligible for CHC.
64. This approach is fault. It prevented the Council (and the Trust) from referring Mr G to the ICB in good time which, in turn, delayed the ICB’s assessment of Mr G’s eligibility for CHC.
65. Further, it is difficult to understand why the ICB did not consider it necessary and appropriate to backdate the award of CHC to the date of discharge. As above, the ICB quoted from paragraph 135 of the National Framework to support its conclusion that Mr G had an existing package of care. However, having relied on this to justify its actions, it appears to have disregarded the corresponding guidance in paragraph 107(a). Paragraph 107(a) notes that when someone is discharged to an “existing package or placement” (which the ICB determined Mr G’s placement to be), the funding for that package or placement should remain in place until the CHC assessment is complete. It also states that “If…the individual is found eligible for [CHC] through this particular assessment, then any necessary re-imbursement should apply back to the date of discharge”. The ICB’s failure to apply the guidance in para 107(a), or explain why it did not, is fault.
66. On balance, it is probable that, without this fault, the ICB would have backdated its award of CHC funding which, in turn, would have meant the Council was no longer responsible for meeting Mr G’s needs or entitled to charge for the cost of his support.
67. I have not found fault with the Trust or the Council. In the context of the ICB’s policies and approach they had no alternative but to arrange care and support for Mr G. There is evidence that professionals from both organisations actively pursued a solution to the situation.

Delay in the ICB’s complaint handling

68. The ICB advised Mr B that it had started its investigation in late October 2024. As part of its investigation it asked for input from the Trust, which it received in early February 2025. The ICB sent its first response to Mr B at the end of August 2025:

• 213 working days from the start of its investigation to its response, and
• 141 working days from receipt of the Trust’s response to the ICB.

69. In the ICB’s first response – a six page letter – there were essentially seven paragraphs which the ICB authored (although three of them related to what the Council had said). In those paragraphs the ICB concluded:

• Checklists and full CHC assessments should not normally take place in inpatient settings.
• Mr G did not meet the eligibility criteria for a commissioned ‘Discharge to Assess’ placement.
• Mr G had an existing care package in place (as it had already been arranged by the time the Trust referred Mr G to the ICB’s CHC Team).

70. The extent of the ICB’s actions it commented on were:

• Staff having some informal, unrecorded, anonymous discussions with staff at the Trust.
• Receiving a completed Checklist.
• Requesting records.

71. In terms of policies and procedures and guidance the ICB accessed, it provided information from:

• The National Framework.
• The step-down provision the Community Intermediate Care Centre commissions in the area.

72. This was not a complex complaint to investigate. The period under review was small – essentially days in terms of the ICB’s “formal” involvement. Further, the ICB’s work on the case was limited. The ICB’s conclusions about its duties are based on its interpretation of easily available, widely-known national guidance about CHC.
73. Overall, I can see no justification for the length of time it took the ICB to investigate and respond to this complaint. The delay is excessive. There is also no evidence that the ICB kept Mr B informed and updated throughout the process. The ICB offered Mr B no real explanation for the delay and there is no assurance that the ICB has analysed what happened or considered how it will avoid similar delays in the future. This delay, and the lack of updates, are both fault. They caused Mr B avoidable time, trouble and frustration which is an injustice.
74. The Council sent its response to Mr B 139 working days after it received his complaint. This was 114 working days longer than the 25-working day target it had said it would respond in. The Council considered more issues of complaint, and had to consider more correspondence and records than the ICB. Nevertheless, this delay was also excessive and was fault. There is also a similar lack of evidence of having kept Mr B updated throughout this time. Again, this is fault and, as with the ICB, this caused Mr G an injustice.

Summary

75. The ICB acted with fault by:
• Refusing to accept a Checklist for Mr G before support had been arranged for him in the community;
• Deciding Mr G had an existing package of care;
• Failing to properly consider its discretion to arrange a CHC assessment whilst Mr G remained in hospital;
• Having decided that Mr G was returning to an existing package care, failing to backdate eligibility for CHC funding to the date of discharge.
76. Both the ICB and the Council acted with fault by taking too long to respond to Mr B’s complaint without a compelling, evidenced explanation.

Back to top

Agreed actions

77. Within one month of the final decision the ICB should write to Mr B to acknowledge the fault identified in this decision - in terms of its actions relating to CHC eligibility, and in regard to its complaint handling. The ICB should also apologise for the impact of these faults. The ICB should follow PHSO’s guidance on making an effective apology.
78. Within one month of the final decision the Council should write to Mr B to acknowledge the fault identified in this decision in regard to its complaint handling. The Council should also apologise for the impact of this fault. The Council should follow LGSCO’s guidance on making an effective apology (at part 2.2 of its Guidance on Remedies).
79. Within one month of the final decision the ICB should confirm to Mr B and the Council that it will backdate Mr B’s eligibility for CHC to the date of his discharge from hospital. This is to ensure the ICB is compliant with the guidance of paragraph 107(a) of the National Framework, having determined that Mr B was being discharged to an existing package of care.
80. Within two months of the final decision the ICB should ensure the outstanding costs of Mr G’s placement (whether they are owed to Mr B or the Council) are settled in full.
81. Within two months of the final decision the ICB should pay Mr B £350 as a symbolic, tangible acknowledgement of the injustice its failings caused him.
82. Within three months of the final decision the ICB should produce an action plan to address the fault this investigation found in its CHC and hospital discharge policies and approach. It should seek to identify and implement specific and realistic ways of improving its processes to ensure they are fair, person-centred and in line with relevant national guidance.
83. Within three months of the final decision both the ICB and the Council should separately complete a review of their complaint handling processes and procedures to ensure they are appropriately robust and effective. This should include consideration of: how they track the progress of complaints; when and how issues should be escalated; and, the systems they have in place to prompt meaningful updates to complainants and other key stakeholders. The plans should seek to identify and implement specific and realistic ways of improving its processes to help avoid recurrences of the failings that occurred in this case.
84. The organisations should provide us with evidence they have complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

85. I have found fault by the ICB which caused an injustice to Mr B, in how it managed the process of assessing Mr G’s needs and deciding how his care should be funded, when he left hospital. I have also found fault by the ICB and the Council in how they handled Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman