Summary: Mrs X complained about a decision by a Council-funded care home, that it would not accept her mother back into its care after a hospital admission. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. In any event, we could not say what would have happened if the care home had accepted Mrs X’s mother back.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Care Home’s refusal to accept her mother, Mrs Y, back after a hospital stay. Mrs Y had fallen at the care home. This led to several moves of accommodation, which Mrs X believes contributed to Mrs Y’s death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided when she complained.
4. I considered information the Council provided, which included copies of complaints correspondence between Mrs X and her sister and the Council and the Care Home.
5. I gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2018 Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Y, had a fall at the Care Home. She was admitted to hospital. After she had undergone surgery for a broken hip, the Care Home arranged to assess her to decide if it could still meet her needs. It visited ten days after her surgery to assess her. It spoke to hospital staff and looked at the records of her stay. The Care Home decided it could no longer meet Mrs Y’s needs.
7. Mrs X believes the Care Home did not want to accept Mrs Y back because of difficulties that had arisen in the relationship between it and Mrs Y’s family. She believes the Care Home’s decision was retaliatory. The Care Home denies this was the case. The Council’s later social care assessment found Mrs Y needed nursing care, and Mrs Y was also found to be eligible for NHS funding. These findings support the Care Home’s decision that it could no longer meet Mrs Y’s needs. Mrs X questions the timing of the assessment, as she felt the Care Home delayed, resulting in Mrs Y’s needs having deteriorated further. She says the doctors and nurses had said Mrs Y’s needs could be met at the Care Home.
8. From the information I have seen, it is unlikely we would find fault. Care homes cannot accept people into their care whose needs they cannot meet. To do so would risk the safety of their service users and could have implications for their registration. The Care Home was entitled to decide it could not accept Mrs Y back into its care, and there is nothing that leads me to believe we would find fault in that decision. The evidence I have seen indicates Mrs Y needed nursing care, which this Care Home could not provide.
9. We could not say now what would have happened if the Care Home had accepted Mrs Y back into its care. We cannot say that Mrs Y’s subsequent deterioration and death was a result of that decision. There are too many uncertainties. Therefore, in any event, any decision we could make about injustice caused to Mrs Y by any fault would be far too speculative.
10. For all the reasons outlined above, we should not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, and in any event we could not say what injustice had been caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman