The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr B’s care and where he lives. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response. It would be reasonable for Mrs B to ask the Court of Protection to consider her views about where Mr B should live.
The complaint
Mrs B complained she wants her husband, Mr B, to come home with a package of care, until a more suitable placement can be found for him. Mrs B says the home where he is currently living is too far away for her and family members to visit. Mrs B says Mr B’s are needs are not being met in the home and he is wearing pads rather than being taken to the toilet
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council confirmed Mr B’s needs are being met in the home and explained he does not always comply with his personal care. It said there are times when Mr B wants to be mobile and during these times staff assist him to walk and use the toilet.
The Council explained there are no current nursing dementia placements available in the area so Mr B cannot be moved to a nearer home. It says it has offered Mrs B a Carer’s Direct Payment to assist with the costs incurred in visiting Mr B but she has declined this offer.
The Council says Mr B requires consistency of care which cannot be provided in his own home and advised Mrs B it is applying to the Court of Protection to decide where, in Mr B’s best interests, he should live. It would be reasonable for Mrs B to ask the Court to consider her views about Mr B’s care needs and whether he should be allowed to return home until such time a suitable local placement can be sourced. We cannot say where Mr B should live.
The Council considered Mrs B’s complaints and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response of make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman