Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to tell Mrs X about a large increase in her father’s care fees. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. In addition, the injustice caused by the fault accepted is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to tell them about a large increase in her father’s care fees. She also complains the Council did not follow up on a continuing healthcare assessment, and that her father’s care home lost some of his personal items.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different findings or outcomes.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How Ionsidered 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. Mrs X’s father, Mr A, received care in a care home.
6. The Council confirmed Mr A was assessed as not being eligible for continuing health care (CHC) funding. The Council said Mr A’s care needs were regularly reviewed and there was no evidence to suggest a completion of a new CHC checklist was needed.
7. The Council highlighted responsibility for reviewing Mr A’s nursing health needs lies with the integrated care board (ICB). The Council signposted Mrs X to the relevant ICB and advised her to request a retrospective assessment of a previously unassessed period of care.
8. An investigation is not warranted on this point as the relevant body responsible for CHC assessments is the ICB. It is open to Mrs X to make a complaint to the relevant ICB.
9. The Council explained at the time Mr A moved to the care home, he did not have any registered power of attorneys or financial deputies. Mr A had been assessed as responsible for paying for the full cost of his care because he had over the capital threshold.
10. The Council said it funded Mr A’s care placement while his family’s deputyship application with the Court of Protection was being considered. The Council explained it should only have funded the placement on a temporary basis of six months as this would have allowed sufficient time for the family to apply for deputyship. However, the Council ended up funding Mr A’s placement for the entire duration.
11. The Council accepted it failed to tell Mr A’s family about the increase in the care charges. The Council has apologised for this. We recognise the failure to communicate the increased charges will have caused some shock and distress to Mr A’s family. However, this is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
12. In addition, this fault would not have changed the fact Mr A was responsible for paying for the full cost of his care. I note Mrs X said if they were told, then the family would have cared for Mr A themselves. I do not consider it is possible for me to make this finding, even on balance, as there are too many uncertainties.
13. The Council also explained Mr A had been admitted to the care home under the Council’s commissioned rate. This was cheaper than what he would have needed to pay under a private contract. Therefore, Mr A financially benefitted from the Council funding his placement for the whole duration.
14. The Council accepted not all of Mr A’s personal items had been recorded when he entered the care home. The Council acknowledged the distress caused to Mr A’s family due to the missing items. The Council said it would raise this matter with its commissioning team.
15. An investigation is not justified as we could not add to the Council’s investigation and findings. I am also satisfied we would not reach any different findings and outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. In addition, the injustice caused by the fault accepted is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman