Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge for care. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his late mother, Mrs Y. He said that following Mrs Y’s placement in a nursing home in March 2017, the Council failed to complete a care plan review and best interests meeting confirming the placement was suitable. Because of that, he says the care placement was not permanent and was in fact interim care. He said the Council should apply the property disregard for the duration of the period she lived at the nursing home.

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.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In the Council’s complaint response, it said towards the end of 2016, there were conversations with Mrs Y’s family about her long-term care needs after she was admitted to hospital. It said the family decided against Mrs Y returning home and placed her in a nursing home.
6. The Council said the case records confirmed it spoke to Mr X about funding that placement and that the twelve-week property disregard would initially apply.
7. Mrs Y was readmitted into hospital. Following that, the family decided to move her to a different nursing home. The Council said, it used its discretion to start the 12-week property disregard again.
8. The Council accepted that it did not review Mrs Y’s care assessment after she moved into the second nursing home. It said the care assessment described the placement as temporary because the family had not decided whether they wanted Mrs Y to remain in that home permanently. It said it did not refer to the decision to place her in a home. It said Mr X was fully aware Mrs Y would be self-funding.
9. Although the Council should have reviewed Mrs Y’s care plan after she moved into the second nursing home; there is no evidence that was a temporary placement with the intention for her to return home. If that were the case, we would expect to see evidence of discharge planning for Mrs Y’s return home, and conversations with her family about this. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that Mrs Y should pay the full fees for that placement. Further investigation by the Ombudsman, would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman