Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing an assessment on his mother Mrs B. This is because the Council has apologised and agreed to reimburse Mrs B the difference in costs between her new care home and the assessment centre care charge. The Ombudsman is satisfied there is no unremedied injustice for him to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr A says because the Council delayed in completing a residential care needs assessment Mrs B was charged at a higher rate than the agreed six-week assessment rate. Mrs B agreed to pay £100 a week, but because of the delay in assessing her, the assessment carried on into the seventh week. Mrs B was charged over £900 for the additional week. Mr A says he wanted to move Mrs B sooner because he was not happy with the care provided but could not arrange this until the Council had completed the full assessment. Mr A says the Council should accept payment of £100 for the additional week.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr A and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr A says because the Council delayed in completing the assessment of Mrs B’s care needs, she had to stay in the residential centre for an additional week, which incurred additional charges.
5. The Council responded to Mr A’s concerns. It apologised and accepted it had delayed in carrying out the assessment resulting in Mrs B having to remain in the centre for an additional week. It explained this was because of high demand and agreed to pay the difference between Mrs B’s new care home fees and the full charge of the centre. The Council says the full weekly cost at the centre is £946 and reduced Mrs B’s payment to £828, the weekly cost of her new care home.
6. Mr A says he was unhappy with the care Mrs B was provided and says the Council should reduce the cost to £100, the agreed cost for the first 6-weeks. The Council has apologised and agreed to reduce to payment to what Mrs B would have paid if she had moved out from the centre any sooner. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has apologised and agreed to reimburse Mrs B the difference in costs between her new care home and the assessment care charge. The Ombudsman is satisfied there is no unremedied injustice for him to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman