Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about Mr B’s Care Provider’s refusal to take him back into the home when he was ready for discharge from hospital. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding.

The complaint

1. Mr D says his father’s, Mr B’s, Care Provider, refused to accept him back into the home following treatment in hospital for a urine infection. Mr D says Mr B’s family were not told or given 28 days’ notification of the eviction. Mr D says Mr B was devastated at not being allowed to go home and could not understand why. Mr D says the Care Provider should apologise to the family, explain why it did not give notice, say why it took three weeks to refund outstanding monies and make a payment to Mr B for the stress, upset and outrage caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider says the GP called for an ambulance for Mr B as his mental health was deteriorating and he could not be kept safe in the home. It says Mr B had previously been treated for a urine infection and a second course of antibiotics had also been given. The Care Provider says Mr B’s mental health had deteriorated, it could not keep him safe, and the hospital had agreed to admit him for an assessment. Mr B was diagnosed with dementia. The provider says it could not meet Mr B’s needs on discharge from hospital as it is a general nursing home. The Care Provider explained the refund was processed and repaid as soon as it received confirmation that funded nursing care had been approved by the NHS Continuing Health Care.
6. While Mr D remains unhappy with this explanation we could not provide him with a different one even if we investigated. The Care Provider has explained it could not manage Mr B’s presenting needs in the home prior to being admitted to hospital and following discharge. Mr B remained in hospital until he was moved to a new home that can manage his needs.
7. We would not say three weeks is an unreasonable amount of time to wait to receive a refund for overpaid care fees. Mr B has now received the refund and there is no ongoing injustice warranting an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman