Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees when Ms Y moved to a different care home. There is no evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Moreover, any fault has not caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Z who is complaining on behalf of himself and his wife (Ms Y) who has passed away says the Council:

• Moved Ms Y to a different care home without his agreement and feels the Council treated her as a statistic with associated costs.
• Asked Ms Y to agree to the cost of the move to the new home even though she did not have capacity to do so. Mr Z says he is unhappy with the costs charged.
• Failed to provide help and advice regarding moving Ms Y’s bed downstairs due to her lack of mobility
• Did not allow him to visit his wife until the day she died and left her in bed for the last two days of her life
• Failed to provide updates regarding the Ms Y’s surgery and aftercare
• Failed to respond to his complaint letters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Mr Z and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Z says he would like the fees for the short term stay waived.
7. The Ombudsman will not be able to resolve the issue regarding Ms Y’s capacity because the Council says it had every reason to believe Ms Y had the ability to make and understand decisions made. This is a professional judgement made at a specific moment in time which the Ombudsman was not party to. Furthermore, the existence of the Power of Attorney on its own does not prove Ms Y did not have capacity at the time the issues in question were discussed.
8. The Council says Mr Z has also accepted during its complaint investigation he was present when Ms Y’s care was discussed. Therefore, he could have objected if he was not happy. It is not for the Ombudsman to speculate on whether Ms Y would still be with us had she been left at home.
9. Mr Z could also have asked for extra guidance regarding Ms Y’s mobility and for any updates regarding her surgery. There is no evidence to suggest Mr Z was ever denied this help.
10. The guidance on who could visit care homes during the Covid-19 pandemic was set by the government and not the Council.
11. There would be no basis for us to recommend waiving the care home fees. The Council has said the amount was discussed with Ms Y and Mr Z has confirmed he was present when this was discussed.
12. However, it is unlikely in the circumstances we could say any injustice to Mr Z from a charge of £783 rather than a slightly lower amount is significant enough to warrant investigation, or that an investigation would be proportionate.
13. In cases where we do not investigate the matters in a complaint, we do not separately investigate the Council’s complaint handling process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman