Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to fully communicate with the family about why his mother was placed in respite care, how long she would stay there and the possible costs of the placement. He says the Council delayed in arranging the measures required to make her home safe for her return. As a result, she remained in the respite placement longer than expected causing her and the family stress and incurring additional fees. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation on the basis that the Council has offered to make a payment to Mrs C.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:
• failed to fully communicate with the family about why his mother was placed in respite care, how long she would stay there and the possible costs of the placement; and
• delayed in arranging the measures required to make her home safe for her return.
2. Mr X says his mother remained in the respite placement for 19 days longer than expected. This caused her and that the family unnecessary stress and cost additional fees which the Council did not tell the family would be incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s mother, Mrs C, suffers from dementia. She lives with her other son, Mr Y who is her main carer.
7. On 18 October 2019 Mrs C’s social worker, Officer B, visited. Mrs C was having problems with her balance and, on the day of the visit, had had a fall. The family say the problems with balance were due to a change in Mrs C’s medication. But Officer B was concerned and suggested Mrs C go into respite care while adaptations were made to her property and also to give Mr Y a break.
8. Mr X says the family was under the impression that Mrs C would only be in respite care for seven days and that there would be no cost.
9. On 29 October 2019 Officer B met with the family to discuss how Mrs C could return home safely. She agreed to discuss handrails with the occupational therapist and arrange an increase in Mrs C’s care package for when she returned home.
10. Mr Y fitted handrails and the occupational therapist confirmed these were suitable.
11. Mr X says the family repeatedly telephoned the Council to find out when Mrs C could return home but says no one returned their calls.
12. An increased care package was put in place and Mrs C returned home on 13 November 2019.
13. Mr X says Mrs C was in respite care for 19 days longer than expected which resulted in the family having to pay £2002.86 in fees. He complained to the Council.
14. The service manager responded explaining that the respite care was arranged by the rapid response service who can provide a week’s respite free of charge to an individual to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. So, Mrs C was not charged for the first week of her stay. He said it was unfortunate that Mrs C remained respite care for 19 days after the rapid response service ended but this was necessary to ensure she could be discharged home safely and the social worker was waiting for assistive technology to be installed in the property.
15. The service manager apologised if the social worker had not kept the family fully informed of the reasons for the delay in discharging Mrs C and accepted it may have been useful to discuss potential timelines at the outset so they were aware of how long it could take to put services in place. He said he would raise this issue with the service and ensure that, in future, potential timescales were discussed with families when discharges from care environments were being planned.
16. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepts that, although respite was discussed and agreed with the family at the outset, and the provision of equipment was discussed during Mrs C’s stay, it is not clear that the financial implications of the extended stay were fully explored. Accordingly, it has offered to refund Mrs C’s charges for the additional 19 days’ respite minus the amount she would have paid for domiciliary care during this period.
17. Mrs C was charged £2002.86 for the additional 19 days respite. When she returned home she received 12 hours support per week on a self funding basis. The cost of this for 19 days would have been £522.44. The Council has therefore offered to refund £1480.42.
18. I am satisfied that the Council’s offer, together with the apology and service improvement offered by the service manager, represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice suffered by Mrs C and her family.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have discontinued my investigation on the basis that the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman