Facts: following concerns about the quality of his home care package, ‘Mr Davey’ was admitted to hospital. Afterwards, Hillingdon placed him in residential accommodation despite his family’s desire to have Mr Davey (properly) cared for at home, by carers and family members. The family agreed on the basis that the residential placement would be temporary only, but Hillingdon failed to resolve the issue of how Mr Davey was not be cared for long-term and placed a charge over his dwelling in relation to the accommodation fees. The family complained, ultimately to the ombudsman.

Conclusions: the Ombudsman held that there had been maladministration as follows:

1) There was maladministration by the Council in failing to follow up serious allegations as to the quality of care. Although it was not possible to conclude that Mr Davey’s hospitalisation had been caused by the poor care, there would have been some adverse effect on him and increased anxiety for the family.

2) The council’s view that Mr Davey needed a residential placement was reached without proper enquiry in the family’s stated wish to care for him in his own home. The principle of promoting independence should not be lightly disregarded. There should have been an assessment which examined more carefully his level of need and how this could be met. In order to avoid delay in discharge, the council could have arranged a temporary admission to a care home pending assessment and consideration of the family’s request for home care. There was no consideration of Mr Davey’s wishes and feelings. The lack of a proper discharge assessment and the failure to carry out a further assessment after discharge was maladministration and this, along with the council’s dismissive attitude to the family, had caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.

3) There was further maladministration by the social worker in failing to keep proper notes of relevant events.

4) The council did not set out in writing to the family the precise financial implications of Mr Davey’s move to residential care.

5) As there was no proper assessment when Mr Davey was placed in residential care, the initial decision that he needed residential care was flawed. As there was no reassessment after his move, the council’s decision to treat Mr Davey as a permanent resident of the home was maladministration. In any event, in this case the stay turned out to be temporary and Mr Davey should have been charged on that basis.

6) The council agreed a settlement of the complaint, including improvements to its monitoring of home care packages and assessment of residents on discharge from hospital, agreed to refund the excessive residential care charges levied on the basis that Mr Davey was a permanent resident, and paid compensation to Mr Davey and his family.