Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it should have handled repairs to Mr B’s extra care housing better and given more consideration to the impact on him. It should have updated details of the family members to contact with concerns about Mr B, and explained why his laundry costs had increased. The Council has reviewed how it approaches these situations, and offered to make a symbolic payment to Mr B in recognition of the impact on him. This is a reasonable way to settle this complaint. There was no fault when it changed the timing of his morning care call.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about various aspects of her father’s care. In particular, she says:
• Her father, Mr B was not showered between 23 November 2024 and 28 January 2025.
• The manager of his extra-care housing wrongly said that Mr B’s family would arrange to move him to respite care, when the family had not done so.
• Mr B’s care plan was changed so that he was woken and dressed before 6am, without consultation with his family or the people involved in his care.
• The manager consulted the former holder of Lasting Power of Attorney despite being told that this was now held by Ms X.
• Mr B has been charged too much for his care.
2. Ms X says that as a result of these failings, her father’s health deteriorated significantly and he moved to a permanent care home place. It also caused Ms X distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:
• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2), as amended)
6. Ms X has Lasting Power of Attorney. This is a legal documents that allows Ms X to deal with Mr B’s affairs on his behalf. As such, we consider Ms X a suitable person to make a complaint for Mr B.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr B lives in extra care housing. This is self-contained accommodation with 24/7 support and emergency response on site, and care delivered to meet individual residents’ needs. His care plan said that care workers will prepare his meals, administer his medication, and support him to have a shower at least three times a week. Mr B paid for his own care. The County Council is responsible for assessing Mr B’s care needs and making sure these are met. Ms X has only complained about the Borough Council. This Council manages the extra care housing.
10. The daily care records show that care workers would call on Mr B around 8am, and then make a mid-morning call. This changed to a combined call around 9am. From 2 August 2024, this morning call changed to 6 am. The Council says this was because Mr B would often rise very early, and so was at risk of wandering into the communal areas undressed if he did not have this early care call.
11. In November, the Council decided Mr B’s bathroom needed work. There had been a leak in his flat and this had caused damage. Ms X has a lasting power of attorney for Mr B’s finances. The Council did not tell Ms X, or any other member of Mr B’s family that the work was to be done. The contractor did some of the work, but extensive damage meant more work had to be done. The contractors said they could not do this with Mr B there as he had become distressed.
12. Ms X became aware of the work because the Council had asked the external care agency that normally visited Mr B, to stay longer and keep him calm while the extra work was completed. It became apparent that the Council’s manager of the extra care accommodation had contacted another family member, the former holder of the lasting power of attorney.
13. Ms X contacted the Council. It said it had tried to contact Ms X, and left messages but she had not returned the calls and so the Council manager, had contacted the other family member because despite not having the current power of attorney, he was still Mr B’s next of kin. Ms X told the Council that she had no missed calls or messages, her email was in Mr B’s flat, and she had given it a different local contact if she was not available.
14. The Council told Ms X that Mr B would be best in respite care for a few days while the work was completed on his flat. She asked that the County Council organise respite for Mr B and the family would look at the finances. The Borough Council confirmed that the County Council would work on this. The Council also reassured Ms X that it would alter the contact details and make sure it did not contact the former holder of power of attorney.
15. The Borough Council told the County Council that it would need to raise a safeguarding concern as Mr B was without washing facilities and the family had not arranged respite so it could do the work. By that time, Ms X was in direct contact with the County Council about respite care options and the correspondence between the County Council and Ms X, shows the County Council established that Mr B would have to pay for respite.
16. Towards the end of December 2024, the Borough Council raised several concerns with the County Council and Mr B’s family about whether it could meet his needs in extra care accommodation.
17. At the beginning of January 2025, the Borough Council raised a safeguarding concern with the County Council. It said it could not provide Mr B with the care and support he needed. His bathroom was still unusable and there had been more safety concerns. Respite had not been organised. It confirmed that there was no other washing facilities for Mr B to use in the accommodation, and it had arranged for the GP to call but thought his deterioration was a likely progression of his illness.
18. Ms X confirmed that she had contacted prospective care homes and Mr B had also agreed that he needed to move. Mr B moved on 21 January.
19. Ms X complained to the Council that it had not liaised with her properly and had used out of date contact details, and it had not handled the repair work to Mr B’s bathroom properly. She also said that the Council had charged him for increased laundry services that he had not used, and had not cared for him properly.
20. The Council acknowledged that the contact details had not been updated in good time and it had not discussed with the family Mr B’s increased laundry needs. It said it would make changes to how it received and recorded information and it offered to pay Mr B £70 in recognition that it had not discussed the laundry charges with him or his family. The Council explained that it had not completed the work, because the family had not arranged respite care. It said the daily care logs show that Mr B was offered means to wash.
21. Ms X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of its complaints process. It said that Mr B’s care calls had been changed to a very early call but this was to meet his needs and to make sure he did not go into the communal areas undressed.
22. In response to this stage two complaint, the Council agreed that it could have handled the repairs better and it should have given greater consideration to the impact of the work on Mr B. It has changed its processes so that it will decant an extra care resident, as it would a tenant, where work is needed.
23. The Council offered Mr B £520 to recognise the impact on him of not having usable or safe washing facilities from 25 November (when the work started) to 17 February (when Mr B’s tenancy ended).
24. In response to our investigation, the Borough Council has arranged an external inspection of the extra care housing service to make sure that it is being run in accordance with the expected standards of the Care Quality Commission.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B or Ms X injustice?

25. The Council has acknowledged that it should have handled the repairs to Mr B’s bathroom better, and in particular, it should have given greater consideration to the impact on him. The Council offered to support Mr B to wash using a flannel and bowl, and I acknowledge that it was for Mr B or his family to arrange respite while the work was in progress. However, had the Council handled this with more consideration, the disruption could have been minimised and respite better organised. Mr B was effectively left without proper washing facilities, and a safe bathroom, from 25 November 2024 to 21 January 2025 (when I understand he moved out). The Council offered to pay Mr B a total of £520 in recognition of the impact on him of this. It has also reviewed its approach to this type of situation so that it can be more proactive. The Council’s response is reasonable and in line with our guidance on remedies.
26. The Council says it had tried to contact Ms X when it became clear that Mr B could not cope with the work to the bathroom. As it could not reach her, it contacted the person who it had recorded as his next of kin. Ms X has said this information was incorrect and the correct details had been given to the Council months earlier, but the Council had failed to update its records.
27. The Council acknowledged that it should have updated the details of which family members to contact regarding concerns, finances, and care for Mr B. The Council has apologised to Ms X and updated its records as soon as it could. There is no need for it to take any further action.
28. I can see that Ms X disagrees with how the Borough Council described the situation to the County Council. It may not have been wholly accurate to say that the family had refused to pay for, or arrange respite. Ms X has explained that it understood the County Council was arranging respite and so it did not need to update the Borough Council about this directly, and also has clarified that the Borough Council was aware that respite arrangements were in hand. However, it is not fault for the Borough Council to say that the family had not arranged respite as this was based on the information it had at the time.
29. It is also clear that the Borough Council had increased concerns that extra care housing was no longer suitable to meet Mr B’s needs, and this led to the move to a residential care home, rather than a mishandling of the repair work and respite.
30. The Council has acknowledged that it should have discussed the increased laundry costs with Mr B and his family. This caused Ms X additional time and trouble to make sure that she was properly safeguarding Mr B’s finances. Ms X has pointed out that the daily care logs do not support that Mr B needed his sheets changing so frequently as to justify the increase, nor was it ‘virtually every day’ as initially described by the Council. However, the Council has explained that he did not always need a complete change of sheets, but sometimes, a sheet or cover would need changing, which was not always noted. The Council has apologised and offered to pay £70 in recognition of the impact on Ms X and Mr B. This is a reasonable means to settle this part of the complaint.
31. There was no fault by the Council when it changed Mr B’s morning call to the earlier time. The daily care notes indicate that Mr B was often awake at that time, and if he was not, the care worker would offer to support him to get up and washed, but then would also come back later to do this if Mr B wanted to sleep some more.
32. Overall, the Council has acknowledged fault and has taken action to remedy the injustice caused. There is no need for it to take further action.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman