Council reminded to ensure views of persons who are interested in care of individual are “considered and recorded” when completing care assessments

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs X, complained about the way the council decided to discharge her mother, Mrs Y, to a care home without considering whether Mrs Y could return home with a care package.

Mrs X said she was “ignored” and not given any advice or help while she was applying for deputyship which took two years.

She told the Ombudsman that the council were now chasing her for £90,000 of outstanding care home fees, following the death of her mother.

Analysing the council’s decision on Mrs Y’s care, the Ombudsman said: “Mrs X says the council told her that Mrs Y could not return home with a package of care. Mrs X says the council said that Mrs Y had to be placed in a residential care home.

“The notes from the time show why the council made this decision. However, the council has acknowledged it should have discussed all options with Mrs X and her family when making this decision. The legislation says the council should consult and take views of the person who is involved in the care or is interested in a person's welfare. Not doing so is fault.”

The Ombudsman observed it could not see that the council told Mrs X of the costs involved in Mrs Y’s residential care home placement before she decided which placement to pick – describing this as fault.

The Ombudsman added: “However, the council did tell Mrs X that Mrs Y was likely to be charged for her care prior to her moving into the residential care home and did advise Mrs X of the costs within a relatively short timeframe.

“The council also kept Mrs X up to date with the level of fees which were outstanding while it waited for her to secure deputyship.

“Therefore, the injustice suffered is limited as Mrs X was aware of the charges and how the amount was building.”

Looking at the issue of deputyship, the Ombudsman noted that Mrs X asked for help from the council to complete the forms to apply for deputyship in April 2022. The council offered to help complete the forms as much as it could at that time.

However, Mrs X had to instruct a lawyer to help put the deputyship in place.

The report said: “The council has acknowledged help could have been provided to Mrs X while she tried to apply for deputyship. The council initially said in its response to my enquiries that this service was not available at the time Mrs X was applying. However, it has now confirmed help was available and Mrs X could have been referred to this help. This is fault.”

It added: “Mrs X asked for help with the deputyship process on several occasions and was not told there may be help available. I understand Mrs X instructed a lawyer to help with the deputyship application and the process of obtaining this was long and difficult. I cannot say Mrs X would not have had to instruct the lawyer even if the council had offered help and as such cannot say Mrs X would not have incurred the costs associated with doing so.”

The council apologised for not telling Mrs X about the help available, but the Ombudsman found this did not go far enough to remedy the injustice Mrs X had suffered.

The Ombudsman said: “Mrs X will have been left with the feeling that had the council offered her help with the deputyship order, it may have been completed sooner and she may not have incurred the costs she did to complete it.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended Staffordshire County Council:

• write to Mrs X to further apologise for the faults identified;
• in writing, remind officers to ensure the views of persons who are interested in the care of an individual are considered and recorded when completing assessments;
• pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the uncertainty caused by failing to tell her about help available in applying for a deputyship order.

Staffordshire County Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson