Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the decision by his father’s, Mr C’s, care home provider to issue Mr C with a notice of eviction. This is because the matters are listed to be heard by a court. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care provider’s handling of Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments because the provider has offered to deduct sums from Mr C’s care fees so there is no unremedied injustice warranting the Ombudsman investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the provider of the care home where his father, Mr C, lives is illegally retaining Funded Nursing Care (FNC) for all residents, including his father, whilst at the same time charging residents for nursing care. Mr B also says Mr C’s care provider should not have issued him with a Notice to Quit the day after he complained. Although Mr C’s care provider has agreed to deduct the FNC payment from Mr C’s fees as a gesture of goodwill, Mr B is concerned the care provider is charging other residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documentation Mr B provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B says Mr C’s care provider gave him Notice to Quit the day after he had complained about him not being reimbursed for FNC payments. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints when court action has started so cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the issue of an eviction notice.
6. FNC is a payment from the NHS to a care provider for nursing care. It is not a payment to the person receiving the care. It does not affect the amount a person should pay for their personal care.
7. Mr B says this is not correct and says Mr C has been charged twice for his care; once through his agreed payment for care which Mr B says includes premium nursing care, and again because the care provider receives payment from the NHS for Mr C’s nursing care needs.
8. In this case, the care provider has agreed, in its response to Mr B’s complaint, to reduce Mr C’s care fees as a gesture of goodwill if the outstanding account was settled. The care provider has therefore remedied any injustice claimed for Mr C solely from this part of the complaint and the matter does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.
9. Mr B says the Ombudsman should investigate his concerns because of the injustice to other residents caused by the care provider not refunding their FNC payments. Mr B does not have consent from other residents to complain for them. The Ombudsman considers each case on its own merits and if other residents or their family members want to complain about charges they have incurred for nursing care, they can ask the care provider to consider their concerns. If they remain unhappy with the care provider’s response, they can come to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
10. Mr B also says local Trading Standards are looking into the wider practice of the care provider, so there would be no basis for the Ombudsman to duplicate its efforts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. We cannot investigate matters relating to the eviction of Mr C because they are the subject of court action. There is no unremedied injustice from the handling of FNC payments to warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman