Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when a package of care at home ended. The package of care ended under the terms of the contract, so there is not enough evidence of fault. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different or worthwhile outcome. So investigation is not justified.

The complaint

1. Ms C says her relative, Mr D’s, package of care at home ended just as he was about to come home from hospital. This meant he could not come home and stayed in hospital 20 days longer than needed. Ms C says there are discrepancies in what the Council has said about the reasons why this happened. Ms C wants the truth and her questions answered.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr D received a package of care at home from agency X. When Mr D went into hospital the Council’s contract with agency X means it retains its service for 14 days. Mr D was in hospital for longer than 14 days and so the package of care expired. The Council had to source a new package of care before Mr D could return home.
6. Ms C has many questions about the timing because she was not told anything until day 16 when she says Mr D was ready to return home.
7. While we understand Ms C’s questions, and feelings the care package should have continued, it is not a good use of the Ombudsman resource to investigate solely to get answers to questions. Under the contract the care package expired after 14 days, and that is what happened. So, there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is unlikely an investigation would reach a different or worthwhile outcome. We could not justify using our resource to investigate to ‘get to the truth’ where the outcome would be the same.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman