The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment and charging of Mr X as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council did not assess her husband’s care needs properly and failed to apply reablement funding. She wants a social worker to complete a Continuing Health Care (“CHC”) checklist and for the Council to provide reablement funding.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The NHS sometimes arranges and pays for temporary care following a hospital stay, to help a person get back to normal and stay independent. This may be funded for up to six weeks and is called reablement or intermediate care.
The Council assessed Mr X to plan for his discharge from hospital. It decided, with input from him and Mrs X, he needed a short term stay in a nursing home pending a further care assessment. It did not consider he needed reablement care and says it told Mrs X the nursing home stay would be chargeable subject to a financial assessment.
It was up to the Council to assess Mr X and decide on his care needs. We cannot question its decision simply because Mrs X disagrees and there is not otherwise evidence of fault in its decision making process.
The Council carried out a further Care Act assessment to decide on Mr X’s long term care. The Council accepted and apologised in its final complaint response that it did not share a copy of this assessment with Mrs X, which it would do now. It would also ensure a social worker completed a CHC checklist as requested. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
If Mrs X is unhappy with the content and decision making evidenced in the care assessment upon receipt, she may raise a new complaint to the Council in the first instance.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman