Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council placed his mother into a care home against her wishes and that she did not receive the free six weeks of care she was entitled to. This is because the likely fault has not caused any injustice to Mrs Z. Further, the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mr X and so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council pressured his mother, Mrs Z, into a care home. He also complains she did not receive the free six weeks of care she was entitled to.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Z was in hospital following several falls at home. In December 2024, a discharge plan was agreed for Mrs Z to be discharged to an active recovery bed (ARB) in a community hospital to enable a full assessment of need to be completed. Mr X said they were told six to eight weeks of care would be provided for free.
7. A referral was made for the ARB bed. However, at the end of December 2024, the referral was declined as it was considered they would not be able to support Mrs Z with meals and because of her risk of falls. The Council tried to source an inpatient rehabilitation bed, but this was also declined as it was considered there was limited potential for rehabilitation. The Council explained only the ARB and rehabilitation bed would have been provided free for up to six weeks.
8. The social worker visited Mrs Z to explain the referrals had been declined due to her high needs. The social worker discussed a short-term placement in a care home and noted Mrs Z declined consent for Mr X to be contacted. No concerns about Mrs Z capacity to make these decisions were recorded.
9. The social worker visited Mrs Z again in January 2025 to complete a care assessment. Case records noted Mrs Z consented to a short-term placement and that she had not consented for the social worker to contact Mr X to discuss the placement. The case records also detailed that top-ups were discussed and that she would be assessed to determine how much she needed to contribute towards the cost of her care.
10. Mrs Z moved into the care home two days after the care assessment was completed.
11. Having reviewed Mrs Z’s case records, it is clear there was some conflicting information regarding her capacity. References were made to Mrs Z sometimes needing support to be fully involved, information that she had been referred to the memory clinic, and that her capacity fluctuates. However, there were also references to the fact professionals in the hospital had no concerns around Mrs Z’s capacity to make choices around her care and support.
12. Given the conflicting information, I am satisfied it would have been best practice for the Council to have completed a mental capacity assessment to determine Mrs Z’s capacity to make decisions around her care and support, and her capacity to consent to Mr X being involved in the discussions around care planning. Therefore, if we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault.
13. However, I don’t consider the likely fault will have caused any injustice to Mrs Z. This is because records are clear the ARB and rehabilitation referrals had been declined. Therefore, it is not likely these options would have been secured, even if Mr X had been kept involved.
14. Further, I am satisfied that even if the likely fault had not occurred, it remains likely Mrs Z would still have been discharged into a care home due to her being assessed as having high care and support needs. The assessment of need identified:
• Mr X was unable to meet Mrs Z’s needs anymore due to being registered disabled.
• Mr X and his partner can be away for a few months of the year and so were not always around the property.
• Mrs Z had four hospital admissions in the last two months.
• Mrs Z had been noted to be calling out day and night for support whilst on the ward.
15. The case records showed the social worker made Mrs Z aware she may be charged for her care and that she would be financially assessed to determine how much she would need to contribute towards her care. Therefore, on balance, it is likely the social worker would have provided the same information to Mr X had he been kept informed about the change in plan. Again, this is evidence to support the view the likely fault did not cause Mrs Z any injustice because she is still in the exact same position she would have been if the fault had not occurred.
16. Finally, there is evidence Mr X was told the short-term care placement was chargeable and that a financial assessment would be completed. Mr X was told three days after Mrs Z entered the care home. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to have raised any concerns about this at the time.
17. It is acknowledged Mr X was caused some distress and frustration at not being told the ARB had been refused and in not being kept involved in the care planning process. As noted above, there is some uncertainty as to whether Mrs Z had capacity to make decisions around her care and support. The Council has acknowledged the injustice caused to Mr X and offered a remedy of £150. This remedy is in line with our guidance on remedies. Therefore, I am satisfied investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the likely fault has not caused any injustice to Mrs Z. Further, the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mr X and so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman