Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. There is no evidence of a wider public interest to warrant us investigating at this time.

The complaint

1. Ms E says the Council wanted to move her father, Mr F, to another care home purely for financial reasons. The Council’s first reaction was to move Mr F to a cheaper care home, or for a third party to pay a ‘top-up’ for his care at his care home, before the Council had completed any assessment of Mr F’s care needs. This was stressful for the family. Ms E spent time researching the law and considering financial options before the Council agreed it would not move Mr F. Ms E wants the Council to improve processes to protect others in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or 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), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:

• information provided by the complainant.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
• The Care Act 2014 and associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F arranged and paid for his own care in a residential care home. Mr F’s family approached the Council when Mr F’s funds fell below the threshold and he would be able to get help from the Council to fund his care.
6. The Council has a duty to meet Mr F’s care and support needs. The first step to achieve this is to complete an assessment of Mr F’s needs, and then plan how to meet them. When creating the plan the Council can include cost as a relevant factor in deciding between suitable alternative options for meeting assessed eligible needs.
7. Ms E says the Council immediately talked about costs and the likelihood of moving Mr F to a cheaper care home before it had carried out any assessment of his needs and how to meet them.
8. Moving to a cheaper care home is in an option in such situations, providing another care home could meet the person’s needs and moving would not have a harmful impact on the person’s wellbeing. It would not be fault for a council to manage expectations about this possibility. But the Council should not decide to move a person before it has assessed the person’s needs and considered any risks of a move.
9. I have not seen evidence to find out whether the Council prematurely decided to move Mr F before it had completed an assessment, but I do not need to consider this matter further. This is because, while it was worrying for Ms E that her father might move, the Council ultimately decided there was a risk to Mr F if it moved him. The Council is fully funding (minus Mr F’s assessed contribution) Mr F’s placement at the care home, so there is no significant injustice to Mr F or Ms E to warrant an Ombudsman investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. We considered whether we should investigate in the wider public interest. Ms E argues others might be paying unwarranted ‘top-ups’ to keep their relatives in a care home, or vulnerable adults might have been unfairly moved. But this is speculative, and not sufficient evidence to warrant us investigating further. There is no pattern of the Ombudsman receiving similar complaints, and so there is no evidence of a systemic issue warranting investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms E’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is no evidence of a wider public interest that would warrant us investigating at this time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman