Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a Council charging for care after a hospital discharge. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. It has also provided a suitable remedy for a delay in cancelling the care package and we would be unlikely to achieve more by investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the actions of Oxfordshire County Council (the Council) after Mrs Y returned home from a hospital stay. In particular Mrs X complains Mrs Y did not receive six weeks free care following her discharge and the Council did not tell Mrs Y or her family about charges.
2. Mrs X also complains that her father, Mr Y, tried to cancel the care package, but the Council did not take any action. The Council later sent Mrs Y an invoice for the full period.
3. Mrs X says this failings have caused the family worry and distress. She wants the invoice cancelled and procedures changed, so costs are confirmed before care starts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. The complainant provided comments on my draft decision and I considered these before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Brief background

9. In July 2022 Mrs Y left hospital following an inpatient stay. She returned home with a care package to meet her needs. Mrs X has explained the family thought there would be a six-week period where care would be provided without charge. She noted the NHS website also suggested this.
10. Mrs X says Mr Y tried to telephone the Council to ask about the care costs and ongoing care needs around five weeks after Mrs Y had left hospital. She says the Council did not respond. Mr Y then contacted the care company by email in early September 2022 asking to cancel Mrs Y’s care package. Mrs Y had to follow this up two weeks later as the care package still had not been cancelled.
11. The Council sent and invoice in October 2022 for the full period Mrs Y had received care since leaving hospital. Mrs X complained to the Council in December 2022. This went through the Council’s three stage process and it issues its final (stage 3) response in July 2023. Mrs X complained to us in December 2023.

Assessment

12. Although the complaint is late, we have exercised discretion to consider it. It is only slightly late, local resolution took several months and the family have been providing care for Mrs Y.
13. On discharge from hospital, some people can receive up to six weeks free care if they need temporary care to get back to normal and stay independent. This is sometimes called reablement. However, Mrs Y had been assessed as needing long term care.
14. The Council has explained its records show it provided Mrs Y’s family with information about financial assessments and charging, including that the care would be chargeable from the outset, before she left hospital. It also explained Mrs Y needed long-term care and set out the expected cost of this.
15. Based on Mrs Y’s assessed needs, she would not have been eligible for reablement care. The Council provided information about charging and when this would apply before Mrs Y left hospital, and also afterwards. I therefore do not consider there is enough evidence of fault by the Council.
16. The Council has accepted fault with not acting on Mr Y’s written instruction to cancel the care package. It apologised for not acting sooner or speaking to Mrs Y about her needs. It also agreed to credit Mrs Y’s account so no care charges were payable from the date Mr Y requested cancellation. The Council offered an extra £150 payment to acknowledge the inconvenience this caused.
17. I consider the remedy suggested by the Council to be reasonable and proportionate. We would be unlikely to achieve more by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council’s actions in charging for care after Mrs Y left hospital. With regards to the cancellation of the care package, we would be unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman