Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council giving him misleading information regarding reablement care which led him to believe he was entitled to free reablement care. This is because the accepted fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave him misleading information regarding reablement care which led him to believe he was entitled to free reablement care. However, he was then told two days before his discharge that he was not entitled to free reablement care. Mr X wants the Council to refund him the cost of his care for six weeks.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In January 2024, the Council completed a care assessment for Mr X. This assessment identified Mr X had no reablement goals. The Council said at this point, Mr X was made aware by the officer of the level of care support he needed.
6. The Council said a manager told Mr X he was not entitled to reablement care because he did not have any reablement goals. The Council said the manager also explained Mr X was responsible for paying for his care as he had over the capital threshold.
7. At the discharge planning meeting, the medical professionals involved in Mr X’s reablement at the hospital noted their view that Mr X had reach a state of little or no change in his functional abilities. Therefore, due to Mr X’s care needs, he did not have any reablement goals and a care package of two carers was necessary to keep him safe. Again, the Council stated due to this, Mr X was not entitled to reablement care.
8. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted fault with its record keeping as it says detailed notes were not kept of discussions held with Mr X and his family between January and February 2024. The Council also accepted Mr X was not provided with clear information about why he was not eligible for reablement care and not given sufficient information to allow him to weigh up the pros and cons of remaining in hospital while waiting for the outcome of his continuing healthcare funding application.
9. While the Council has accepted fault with not providing clear information to Mr X initially about the reasons why he was not eligible, the Council has now provided a clear explanation for Mr X was not eligible for reablement care. Therefore, even if the fault had not occurred (i.e. Mr X was given clear information at the time), it is the case Mr X is still in the same position as he would have been. Therefore, the accepted fault has not caused significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
10. Further, the Council has acknowledged its faults with regards to poor record keeping and failure to provide clear information. I am satisfied this will have caused some distress and frustration to Mr X. The Council has apologised for this and I am satisfied this was an appropriate remedy. I don’t consider an investigation would lead to any further recommendations.
11. I am also satisfied an investigation would not lead to any further findings of fault as the Council appropriately told Mr X of the level of care and support he needed following its care assessment. Further, the Council appropriately advised Mr X he would be responsible for paying the full cost of his care due to the level of savings he had.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the accepted fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman