Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mrs X’s father’s care needs. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has also take action to refund care charges to cover an apparent deficit in care provided and there is nothing further we could achieve from an Investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council provided an unnecessary level of care services for her father, Mr Y. Mrs X says family members were able to complete some of the tasks for Mr Y. Mrs X also says Mr Y should have been receiving Continuing Healthcare Funding from the NHS.
2. Mrs X says the Council also excluded the family from decisions about Mr Y’s welfare. She says the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. When Mr Y was discharged from hospital, health professionals recommended he be placed in a care home. The family disagreed with this. The Council recommended Mr Y have four calls per day provided by two carers to meet his care and support needs. The family disagreed with this and asked the fourth call to be removed as the family were providing support for Mr Y.
7. Mr Y was later admitted to hospital suffering from dehydration. The Council reviewed his care needs and said Mr Y required 4 calls per day and observation and assistance with fluid and food intake. The care provider also advised the Council it was consistently running over the 30 minute call times allocated.
8. The Council carried out a mental capacity assessment for Mr Y and found he lacked capacity to understand his care and support needs. The Council took over Mr Y’s case and decided it would be in his best interests to receive 4 calls per day. The family disagreed that this was necessary.
9. Mr Y passed away. Mrs X says her father had just been assessed as being eligible for Continuing Healthcare funding which would have covered the costs of his care.
10. The Council said that a review of care records show a deficit of 22 hours care for Mr Y. The Council says this is likely because care staff were not able to log start times due to the need to attend to Mr Y as soon as they arrived at his home. The Council has offered to refund this from outstanding care charges.
11. We would not criticize a Council for responding to concerns about a person’s welfare. Mr Y was admitted to hospital suffering from dehydration and the Council decided his care needs were not being adequately met. It is unlikely, therefore, we would find fault with the Council’s decision to carry out a mental capacity assessment and take control of decisions about Mr Y’s care given the family’s position on this. Therefore we should not investigate this complaint.
12. The Council has identified a deficit in the care provided to Mr Y. This is not necessarily fault. However the Council’s offer to refund 22 hours from outstanding care charges. It is unlikely that further investigation would result in a different outcome and so we should not investigate this complaint.
13. Continuing Healthcare funding is the responsibility of the NHS. If Mrs X and the family are unhappy with decisions made they may raise a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman which is responsible for complaints about health services.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council regarding Mr Y’s care needs. It is also unlikely we could achieve anything further regarding recorded deficits in care delivered to
    Mr Y as the Council has offered to refund charges made.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman