The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of care and support to her grandmother. The Council has accepted some fault and agreed to our proposed recommendations. We do not consider further investigation is justified for the other complaints as there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of care and support to her grandmother, who has dementia. She says the Council failed: To complete its care and support assessments appropriately.
To provide relevant information to her mother to enable her to make the best decision for her grandmother.
To act on information that raised concerns about her grandmother’s wellbeing.
To provide an urgent care placement, which resulted in her grandmother being hospitalised.
To complete the financial assessment appropriately.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before the final decision was issued.
My assessment
The Council completed a care and support assessment for Miss X’s grandmother, Ms F. The assessment identified Ms F had eligible care and support needs and recommended a home support package of three visits a day, seven days a week.
The Council accepted during its consideration of the complaint that it was at fault for not putting this package of care in place earlier. The Council apologised but did not offer any further remedy for the injustice caused.
If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find the fault identified caused an injustice to Ms F. This is because she did not receive the support she was assessed as needing and this would also have caused some uncertainty as to whether this contributed to Ms F’s decline which led to her being hospitalised. We also consider this would have caused Ms F’s family some distress.
We consider it is appropriate for the Council to recognise this through a financial payment. We therefore invited the Council to pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and loss of service caused by the fault accepted.
I do not consider there is any evidence to suggest there was fault in how the Council completed the care and support assessment. Evidence shows the assessment was completed with the family involved, and that care and support needs were identified.
I note Ms X is unhappy with the conduct of the social worker. However, the Council has already acknowledged information could have been communicated better and apologised for this. I don’t consider further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Finally, I have reviewed the Council’s financial assessment to consider if this was completed appropriately. The Council appropriately considered Ms F’s income and ensure Ms F was allowed the minimum income guarantee. Therefore, the assessment was completed in line with the law, and the Council is entitled to charge Ms F her assessed contribution towards the cost of her care.
Agreed action
To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by agreeing to our proposed recommendation to pay Miss X £500 within four weeks of the final decision.
Final decision
We uphold this complaint as the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults accepted. We do not consider further investigation is justified for the other elements as there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman