Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees. This is because it is unlikely we would find the actions of the Care Provider caused the injustice of paying for two care homes for the same period.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Care Provider delayed her father, Mr C’s, move to another care home which caused them to pay care fees to both care homes for a period of time. Ms B says the Care Provider posted a Covid-19 PCR test, knowing Royal Mail was due to strike the next day. The test had to be repeated. Ms B does not feel the family should pay all the care fees because they were not responsible for the delayed move.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. 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:

• the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

4. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

5. Mr C has died, we have accepted Ms B as a suitable representative.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr C lived at Ashtonleigh (care home 1) and wanted to move to care home 2.
9. Care home 2 would only accept Mr C with a PCR test confirming he was negative for Covid-19.
10. Care home 1 did the PCR test as soon as possible and put it in the NHS priority post box. The test was delayed, so was inconclusive, and had to be done again.
11. Both care home 1 and care home 2 charged Mr C for around a week. Mr C was still living at care home 1 and waiting the PCR results to move to care home 2.
12. Ms B says care home 1 should not have relied on the post knowing Royal Mail strikes were due the next day. Ms B says this is the reason for the delay and for the double charges.
13. The Ombudsman could not say this was the sole action which caused Mr C to be charged by both care homes. We also could not say care home 1 could have anticipated the priority post would necessarily be delayed to an extent the test was inconclusive. Royal Mail do still prioritise and complete some deliveries during strike action.
14. Care home 1 completed the PCR test required by care home 2 and only charged Mr C for the time he lived there.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we could find the Care Provider’s actions caused the injustice of paying two care homes for the same period.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman