Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s mother’s eligibility for financial assistance prior to her discharge from hospital. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council failed to determine his mother’s eligibility for financial assistance prior to her discharge from hospital.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B told us his mother, Mrs C, had been in hospital. He said a hospital doctor invited him to a ward meeting to discuss Mrs C’s discharge arrangements. A social worker was not present at the meeting. Those present at the meeting decided Mrs C should move into to a care home. Mr B told us he found a care home so the hospital discharged his mother there.
7. When it replied to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it was not aware Mrs C had moved into a care home until the month after her move. The Council said the expected practice was for the hospital ward to request social work intervention and to involve the hospital social work team in any discharge planning. The Council said usually a social worker would attend discharge planning meetings, discuss funding and request a financial assessment. The Council told Mr B it had no record of Mrs C’s case being referred to its hospital social work team. It told Mr B his mother moved to the care home under a privately funded arrangement in which it had no involvement.
8. Had the Council been involved in the discharge planning and financial assessment process at the time Mrs C first moved into the care home permanently, it would have been able to look at disregarding the value of her home for 12 weeks. The purpose of the 12-week property disregard is to give residents time to make important financial decisions at the beginning of a permanent stay in a care home.
9. Mr B told us at the discharge planning meeting no-one referred to the 12-week property disregard or the need for a social worker to be involved in the discharge planning process. When he became aware of the 12-week property disregard he asked the Council to apply it but it refused to do so.
10. There is nothing in the Care Act 2014, the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, or the Care and Support Statutory Guidance which says councils must backdate funding for care before the date someone asks for help.
11. There is nothing to indicate social workers were aware of the discharge planning meeting and Mrs C’s circumstances at the time she agreed to move into the care home. She funded her own care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman