Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this complaint about the Council’s failure to reimburse the cost of hiring a private ambulance to transfer an elderly man from a hospital to a care home. This is because the Council has now agreed to refund the cost.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council’s Adult Social Care service wrongly charged him for the cost of a private ambulance to transport his father-in-law (Mr C) from a hospital in its area to a care home in another part of the country. Mr B also complained about the unsatisfactory way in which the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter.

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 an investigation if, for example, we are satisfied with the remedial action the Council has already taken or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint, and his comments in response to my initial view about his case. I also took account of the Council’s correspondence with Mr B about his complaint.

What I found

4. Mr C was an in-patient at a hospital in the Council’s area. The hospital Trust arranged for Mr C to be discharged to a care home in another part of the country so he could be closer to his family.
5. But shortly before the discharge date the Adult Social Care service told Mr B he would have to pay for the cost of an ambulance to transport Mr C to the care home.
6. Mr B paid for the ambulance to enable the discharge to go ahead. But he then complained to the Council. Mr B said Adult Social Care should be liable to meet the transport cost under the terms of the Care Act 2014, and he asked it for a refund.
7. The Council took three months to respond to Mr B’s complaint, for which it apologised. But the Council said Adult Social Care had no responsibility to reimburse Mr B and it would contact the Trust to find out where else he could take his complaint.
8. Mr B did not receive any further substantive response from the Council or the Trust, so he complained to the Ombudsman.
9. However, shortly after we made initial enquiries to the Council about Mr B’s complaint, it wrote to say it had carried out an internal review and had now decided to refund the charge for the ambulance. In addition the Council apologised to Mr B for its error and also said it would send information to managers in Adult Social Care to try and ensure there was no repeat of what went wrong in his case.
10. In the circumstances I do not see we have reason to pursue Mr B’s complaint any further.
11. In particular I consider the Council’s acknowledgement of fault, its apologies, the refund of the charge for the ambulance, and its commitment to take steps to avoid a repetition of its mistake, represent a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr B suffered. As a result I do not see we can justify carrying out an investigation in his case as I consider this is very unlikely to achieve a substantively more favourable outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to refund the cost of an ambulance to transport Mr C from hospital to a care home. This is because in the course of our initial enquiries the Council confirmed it had taken appropriate remedial action to resolve this issue.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman