Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the use of Further Nursing Care funding. This is because there is no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr F, says that the Council allowed the Care Provider not to reflect an increase in Further Nursing Care funding (FNC) in the fees charged for his mother’s care. Mr F says that the Care Provider should have offset an increase in FNC against the care fees, and that the Council should have held it to account as it (the Council) was paying the fees under a deferred payment agreement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Mr F and by the Council. I have also sent Mr F a draft decision for hi view.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr F’s mother, M, went into residential care on a deferred payment agreement. The agreement was clear that the payment was exclusive of FNC. The Care Provider billed the Council for the fees, exclusive of FNC, which the Council paid as a deferred payment loan. The Council says that the Care Provider applied for FNC on behalf of M, to make up the shortfall.
5. However, when M died recently, Mr F found that there had been a general uplift in FNC in 2019. He says the Council should have notified him, and should have varied the contract with the Care Provider to reflect the increased FNC in a reduction of the fees for M’s care.
6. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It said that the level of the fees had been agreed at the outset, and the amount the Care Provider received as FNC was not relevant.
7. Mr F disagreed and has complained to the LGSCO. He argues that the increase in FNC did not result in additional nursing care for M, and the Care Provider should therefore not have retained it.
8. I do not accept Mr F’s argument. The fixed fee was agreed at the point of entry, plus FNC. The level of FNC is not relevant to that agreement. Additionally, the Department of Health (DoH) was clear that the general uplift in FNC was well overdue, and was needed to reflect the increased costs to care providers. FNC is an amount fixed by the DoH, and does not reflect individual needs.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman