Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging a top-up fee for his mother’s, Mrs D’s care home placement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council did not consider the distress his mother would have incurred if she had been moved to a different home in December 2021 when her capital fell below the threshold for full self-funding. Mr B says the family agreed to paying a top-up for his mother to remain in the home because of the Council’s failure to properly assess the impact of her moving and he has not seen any evidence the Council accurately determined whether there were vacancies in the homes it said were available at the time. Mr B wants to the Council to ensure his mother can stay in the home where she currently lives without her family having to pay a top-up fee.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaints. It said it advised Mr B’s sister of available vacancies in care homes between 20-21 December 2021 and confirmed one of the homes had availability during these dates. It acknowledged moving a care user from one setting to another can impact on their wellbeing, but in Mrs D’s case it did not pursue this because the family decided she should remain where she was currently residing and agreed to pay a top-up.
6. The Council has confirmed there was a vacancy in a care home which would have met Mrs D’s needs, but this was not pursued because the family wanted her to remain in the home where she currently lives. This is within the principles of the Care Act 2014 statutory guidance and local policies. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.
7. The Council has advised Mr B if the family can no longer afford to pay the top up fees they can look at arranging suitable alternative accommodation. Mr B can pursue this option with the Council if this is the case.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman