Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider refusing to give her a refund for her husband Mr X’s respite stay which did not happen. There is not enough evidence that actions or inactions by the Care Provider caused injustice to Mr and Mrs X to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X is elderly and has vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s which causes him to be confused and has physical ailments which make him frail. Mr X had three respite stays at Menwinnion Country House care home in 2024. His wife Mrs X is his carer. She organised for Mr X to stay at the same care home for another week in autumn 2024. Mrs X decided after arriving at the home that neither of the two rooms offered for Mr X would be safe or suitable for him and placed him at a different home on the same day. The care firm decided Mrs X had cancelled the stay and was not entitled to a refund under its terms and conditions. Mrs X complains the care firm is wrongly refusing to refund the payment for Mr X’s stay.
2. Mrs X says she and Mr X are out-of-pocket by £1,250, the full respite cost. She says the matter has caused her upset and anxiety. Mrs X wants the Care Provider to refund the respite charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider told Mrs X when booking the respite stay that rooms Mr X had been in before would not be available so they would not know exactly which room he would be offered. But after three previous respite stays, Mrs X requested the fourth with the expectation the home could meet Mr X’s needs. The Care Provider took the booking and payment with a similar expectation.
7. Mr X’s previous stays at the home meant Mrs X would have known of the Care Provider’s terms and conditions for respite bookings. The relevant section on cancellations states: ‘70% of full payment will be refunded up to one week prior to arrival. No refund is given for cancellation after one week prior to arrival.’ The terms and conditions would not provide a full refund of the fees, even if Mrs X had cancelled more than seven days in advance of the planned stay, as the contract caps the maximum refund at 70 percent.
8. Mrs X and the other family members taking Mr X to the home decided the first room was not suitable due to the door’s proximity to stairs. We can understand Mrs X’s concerns about its suitability for someone with Mr X’s conditions and circumstances. The Care Provider offered an alternative room for Mr X’s stay to go ahead. But Mrs X and her family’s evidence indicates that after seeing the first room, they had decided they no longer wanted Mr X to stay at the home.
9. We recognise it is Mrs X position that because Mr X was at the home on the required date in line with the agreement with the Care Provider, she did not cancel the respite stay. But her decision, albeit last-minute, not to leave Mr X at the home amounted to her cancelling the stay. It was not an action or inaction by the Care Provider which led to Mr and Mrs X not receiving a refund in line with the contract terms and having the upset and worry of finding a different home.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence it was actions or inactions by the Care Provider which caused the claimed injustices to Mr and Mrs X to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman