Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council communicated with Mr X about his mother’s discharge from hospital to a short-term placement. We cannot achieve the outcome the placement should not be paid for which is what Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s poor communication led him to believe his mother’s discharge from hospital to a short-term residential placement was arranged under a discharge to assess pathway which would not be chargeable. Mr X says it was only when he received an invoice for care services that he realised the Council had charged his mother, Mrs Y, for the placement. Mr X says his mother should not be asked to pay the care fees for the short-term placement given the Council has accepted its communication was poor. He wants the Council to withdraw the invoice for £9,000 it is asking his mother to pay.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X holds a lasting power of attorney which allows him to make decisions about his mother’s, Mrs Y, property and financial affairs and health and welfare.
6. Mrs Y was discharged home from hospital in May 2025 with care and support in place. She had a fall at home the day after her discharge and returned to hospital that day.
7. At a discharge meeting held in June Mrs Y agreed to move into a short-term residential placement. Mr X says the Council’s communication and explanation was poor and both he and his mother were led to believe the placement was being arranged under a discharge to assess pathway.
8. The Discharge to Assess (D2A) process supports the discharge from hospital of people who are clinically stable and no longer need acute hospital care, but who require further assessment to establish their ongoing health and social care needs. D2A usually involves short-term funding for support services to facilitate the assessment process.
9. On balance, it is likely the Council’s communication with Mr X and Mrs Y about the discharge placement was not clear as this is reflected in its complaint response. For example, it is unlikely it gave Mr X a leaflet which explained the short-term care process. There also appears to be poor communication about the difference between a short-term residential care placement and D2A.
10. The Council accepted it was at fault and said it would act to improve. It said it would review the discharge information materials its shares with the public and review its staff guidance. The Council also apologised to Mr X for any impact the fault had. This is a proportionate remedy.
11. Mr X says because the Council accepts its communication was poor his mother should not have to pay for the costs of the short-term residential placement which amounts to around £9,000.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome
    Mr X wants. Our remedies attempt to put right the consequences of fault for the people affected, as best as possible in the circumstances. Usually, our recommendations aim to put them back in the position they would have been in, but for the faults we have identified.
13. If the Council’s communication had been clearer it is likely Mrs Y and Mr X would not have been confused about whether the placement was short-term residential care or D2A. There is not enough evidence to suggest Mrs Y would not have been charged for the placement therefore the care arrangements would carry and charge and the cost of the placement would need to be paid. We cannot achieve the outcome that Mrs Y should not pay for the placement as this would place her in a more favourable position than she would have been in, but for the fault accepted by the Council. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman