Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her father’s care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s care and support. She complains the Council:
• Delayed in responding to her request for information about respite care.
• Did not provide her with information about the Council’s rate for nursing homes until after her father had entered the home.
• Failed to consider the risk and detriment to her father were he to move to another nursing home.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Ms X contacted her father, Mr Z’s, social worker in August 2024. Having reviewed the text message sent, I am satisfied the message comes across more as a query as it only states her mother was considering respite care if Mr Z had another bad night and asking the social worker how long it would take to arrange respite care. Ms X’s text did not indicate the situation was urgent or that respite care was required immediately.
6. The social worker responded two days later with the contact information of its brokerage team. I am satisfied, if we were to investigate, we are not likely to consider this amounts to delay. This is especially given Ms X had not indicated to the social worker the matter was urgent.
7. However, Ms X had already arranged a placement with a nursing home. Ms X confirmed she did this due to prior experience with the Council being slow to respond. She acknowledged she did not call the Council to discuss the matter before commissioning the placement.
8. The Council provided evidence it made Ms X and her mother aware of the maximum it would fund and the top up fees that were payable should Mr Z remain in the privately arranged nursing home. The evidence provided also confirmed Ms X’s mother agreed to pay the top up fee stated.
9. Even if the Council had not told Ms X how much it would fund for a nursing home placement, Ms X had sufficient information to work this out given the Council had confirmed the top up fees that were payable.
10. Therefore, I am satisfied an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council provided Ms X and her mother with the relevant information to allow them to make an informed decision to keep Mr Z in the nursing home they had commissioned.
11. Mr Z has been assessed as now requiring long term care in a nursing home. The Council offered Ms X some alternative care homes that do not require a top up. However, the Council said Ms X declined this, decided to keep Mr Z in the current care home on a long-term basis, and agreed to pay the top up fees.
12. Ms X said she raised concerns about why alternative care homes were not suitable for her father. These included:
• Two of the alternative care homes were too far for her mother to drive to.
• Two did not provide the same level of care as current home.
• None of the homes offered provided for Mr Z’s spiritual needs.
• Moving Mr Z would be extremely disorientating and distressing for him.
13. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it would consider the ability of Mr Z’s wife to visit him in his permanent placement. The Council said it could consider providing transport to facilitate visits. However, the Council confirmed some of the alternative care homes offered were closer to Mr Z’s wife than his current nursing home.
14. The Council also confirmed it could not consider whether the nursing homes offered were not suitable for Mr Z’s needs because none of the homes had assessed him due to the family choosing not to proceed.
15. Finally, the Council said that part of the transition planning would include risk assessments being completed to identify any risk to Mr Z in him moving to the new placement and what risk mitigation can be put in place. The outcome of the risk assessment would then inform the best interest discussions.
16. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council has appropriately offered cheaper alternative placements for Mr Z to move to and explained how it would manage the move.
17. While I acknowledged Ms X has concerns about moving her father, I am satisfied the Council could not have considered the matter further due to Ms X declining to move Mr Z. It is open to Ms X to engage with the Council to source a cheaper suitable alternative placement if the current placement is not financially sustainable.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman