Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council misled her sister into thinking she would be moving to a care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains her sister was misled into thinking she would be moving to a care home. However, it was later determined the care home could not accept her sister as a resident due to not having the appropriate registration. She says this raised her sister’s expectations and now her sister is anxious about where she is going to live.

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 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s sister, Ms Z, currently lives in supported living accommodation. Her primary care need is due to her mobility, but Ms Z does have mild learning disabilities.
6. The Council completed a care assessment which identified Ms Z’s care needs were not being met. This was due to her mobility declining and the social hours she had received from the support living accommodation being stopped. The Council identified a care home was suitable to meet Ms Z’s care needs.
7. The Council found a care home, which initially stated it could meet Ms Z’s care needs. However, it was highlighted by the Care Quality Commission that the care home did not have the appropriate registration to accepted Ms Z due to her learning disabilities. The care home’s position is that the placement was never approved, and it was satisfied it could not meet Ms Z’s needs.
8. The Council met with Ms Z and her family in November 2024 to explain what had happened with the care home. Clear information was given that the care home did not have the appropriate registration to accept Ms Z.
9. An investigation is not justified as there are no worthwhile outcomes. This is because it has already been acknowledged the care home had initially missed that it did not have the appropriate registration to accept Ms Z. An investigation would not lead to any different findings, and we cannot compel the care home to accept Ms Z.
10. The Council has evidenced it explored over 15 care homes but that the ones consulted either could not meet need or the family had declined due to being too far away. While it tried to find a suitable placement, the Council confirmed it had amended Ms Z’s care package and increased her social support hours to address her isolation. It was also exploring social groups and day services to identify any activities Ms Z may wish to join, again to address her isolation.
11. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has appropriately reviewed Ms Z’s care needs and care package and put in place a suitable care package while it sources a suitable care home. We are also not likely to find fault for not yet sourcing a suitable care home as the Council has evidenced it is trying to find a care home that meets Ms Z’s needs and meets the family’s wishes for the care home to be in certain areas.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman