Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s actions leading up to Mrs Y’s discharge from hospital. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Care Provider’s actions during her mother’s (Mrs Y’s) hospital admission. Ms X said the Care Provider:
• failed to confirm in writing that it could not meet Mrs Y’s needs after discharge;
• did not have the necessary equipment to transfer Mrs Y; and
• wrongly alleged breach of contract and charged a notice fee.
2. Ms X said the Care Provider’s actions prolonged Mrs Y’s hospital stay and contributed to her decline. She said the matter had also caused significant distress. She wanted the Care Provider to acknowledge fault, recalculate Mrs Y’s fees to account for the date on which she believed fees should have been paid until, and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y was admitted to hospital in late 2025 following a fall. When she was medically fit for discharge, Ms X and the Care Provider began discussing her needs following discharge. Ms X says it was clear the Care Provider could no longer meet Mrs Y’s needs. However, the Care Provider was awaiting further information from the hospital to consider Mrs Y’s potential for rehabilitation. She received some physiotherapy with the aim of improving her ability to transfer. The Care Provider also explained it could still likely meet Mrs Y’s needs if she did not improve, as it would be provided the necessary equipment.
7. The contract between the Care Provider and Mrs Y says charges for care will cease on the day the room is cleared if the Care Provider has confirmed in writing the person cannot return from hospital. If the person or their family gives notice to leave, a period of four weeks’ notice applies.
8. If a person seeks strict interpretation of a contract, the courts are best placed to deal with the matter. We can interpret contracts on an ordinary reading and examine how they appear to the reasonable member of the public. In this case, the terms of the contract were clear. The Care Provider did not give notice in this instance, nor could we say notice was implied or that the Care Provider breached the contract as Ms X asserts.
9. Ms X says the Care Provider did not give written notice at a time when it should have. We could not say whether the Care Provider could have met Mrs Y’s needs on discharge from hospital, or whether she required a nursing placement. This would have been dependent on the relevant professional assessments being completed. While it is not ideal for a person to remain in hospital after they are medically fit for discharge, in this case staying for longer would have provided the opportunity for those assessments to be completed. Ms X chose for Mrs Y to move to a nursing home placement in order to have her discharged sooner. This is a choice she was entitled to make, but we could not say the Care Provider was at fault.
10. The Care Provider considers fees of £3,216 are due for the four week notice period, in line with the contract. If we investigated this complaint, we would not achieve a different outcome. It is open to Ms X to argue her defence as part of any court action the Care Provider decides to take.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman