Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council managed her father’s discharge from hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her father’s, Mr Y’s discharge from hospital. She said the Council would not agree to fund his placement in his care home of choice, Home B, as it cost too much.
2. Miss X said the Council wanted to discharge him into a temporary care home, whilst she arranged third-party top-ups to fund Mr Y’s placement in Home B.
3. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused uncertainty, stress and inconvenience. She wants the Council to compensate her for distress caused and to train staff to understand their obligations under the Care Act 2014.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. The Care and Support and Aftercare (Choice of Accommodation) Regulations 2014 set out what people should expect from a council when it arranges a care home place for them. Where the care planning process has determined a person’s needs are best met in a care home, the council must provide for the person’s preferred choice of accommodation, subject to certain conditions.
8. The council must ensure:

• the person has a genuine choice of accommodation;
• at least one accommodation option is available and affordable within the person’s personal budget; and,
• there is more than one of those options.

9. However, a person must also be able to choose alternative options, including a more expensive setting, where a third party or, in certain circumstances, the resident is willing and able to pay the additional cost. This is called a ‘top-up’.
10. In the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint, it said that Home B cost more than its usual level of funding for the type of care placement. Because of that, it offered Mr Y an interim placement whilst it searched for alternative suitable permanent care homes within his personal budget. It said it would support a place in Home B for Mr Y, but that was dependent on top-ups.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council was required to identify suitable care homes within Mr Y’s personal budget, to provide him a choice of accommodation. It offered Mr X interim accommodation whilst it did this to prevent delay in his discharge from hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. Mr Y secured top-ups and moved into Home B from hospital. Although this period may have been stressful for Miss X, there is nothing to suggest either she or Mr Y have been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman