Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about charging for her mother’s respite care. This is because we could not add to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council invoiced her mother for three weeks of respite care for her mother, Ms Y, in a care home, when the family had only agreed to two. She says they should not have to pay for the third week as the Council required an extension that neither Ms X nor Ms Y wanted.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council arranged respite care for Ms Y in a care home for two weeks, to include an assessment of Ms Y’s adult care needs. Ms X says she was told this would cost £600-£700 per week and that Ms Y would need to pay for this in full because of the amount of capital she had.
6. Ms X said an officer called her in week 2 to explain the social worker was off sick and asking her to persuade Ms Y to stay an extra week so the social worker could “discharge her personally”.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said it spoke to Ms Y and she told it she was feeling unwell and agreed to stay an extra week. It said there were no concerns about Ms Y’s capacity to make that decision, so it acted in line with her wishes. In the third week, the social worker carried out a review, following which Ms Y returned home.

My assessment

8. There is no dispute that the Council initially agreed to arrange respite care for two weeks and the family were aware they would have to fund this.
9. There is a dispute about whether Ms Y was happy to stay for a third week, which we are unlikely to be able to resolve as it would be one party’s word against another’s. The Council says it spoke to Ms Y, who agreed to stay longer. Although this was not agreed with Ms X, the Council was entitled to rely on Ms Y’s agreement, given there were no concerns about her capacity to make that decision. Ms Y received the care in the third week and therefore the Council is entitled to charge for it.
10. Therefore, we will not investigate further because it is unlikely we can add to the Council’s own investigation or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman