Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to facilitate a move for her father who lives in a nearby borough into extra care housing in its area. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to facilitate a move for her father from a nearby borough into extra care housing within its area. She also says the Council officer she spoke to was rude and dismissive.
2. She wants the Council to agree to her father’s placement at their preferred extra care housing facility. She also wants an apology for the officer’s behaviour, compensation for the distress caused and the Council to improve its services.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Sometimes councils have to decide between themselves which organisation has to meet someone’s eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014. They do this by deciding where the person is ‘ordinarily resident’. There is no definition of ordinary residence in the Care Act, therefore, the term should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
7. There may be some cases where a council considers it proper for the person’s care and support needs to be met by providing accommodation in another council area. Section 39 to 41 of the Care Act and the regulations set out what should happen in these cases. They specify which council is responsible for the person’s care and support when they are placed in another council’s area. The principle is the person placed ‘out of area’ is considered to continue to be ordinarily resident in the first or ‘placing’ authority area and so does not get an ordinary residence in the ‘host’ or second authority. The council which arranges the accommodation, therefore, keeps responsibility for meeting the person’s needs.
8. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests.

What happened

9. Ms X’s father, Mr Y, lives in a nearby London borough, Council B. Council B currently arranges and funds Mr Y’s care and support. Mr Y has health conditions and lacks capacity to decide where he should live.
10. Ms X approached the Council to ask if Mr Y could move to extra care housing within its area. The Council decided that, as Mr Y was not ordinarily resident within its area and it was not responsible for arranging and funding his care and support, it would not agree to Ms X’s request. It told her it was Council B’s responsibility to determine what was in his best interest and to fund the package accordingly. Ms X was dissatisfied with this decision. She also complained the officer involved was rude and dismissive.

My findings

11. Mr Y is currently ordinarily resident in Council B’s area. Therefore, as Mr Y lacks capacity, it is for Council B to decide what is in Mr Y’s best interests and what care arrangements will best meet Mr Y’s needs.
12. The Council has explained this to Ms X and advised Council B what it needs to do. This is what we would expect. Further investigation is unlikely to reach a finding of fault.
13. Ms X also complained a Council officer was rude and dismissive when discussing the matter with her. The Council deny this was the case. It is unlikely further investigation would be able to reach a finding on this, and in any case, I do not consider it caused Ms X a significant injustice that would warrant investigation in its own right.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman