Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s hospital discharge team. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council’s hospital discharge team unnecessarily delayed facilitating her late partner’s move to another hospital.
2. She said the situation caused her distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s partner Mr Y was admitted to hospital A in May 2022. Mrs X informed hospital A that she wanted Mr Y to be discharged to hospital B. The Council received contact from hospital A to discuss the situation and the Council told the hospital to provide information about Mr Y’s condition for it to put together a suitable care package.
7. The Council did not receive this information until August 2022 when hospital A formally referred Mr Y. A Council social worker than contacted hospital A to discuss discharging Mr Y but by this point Mr Y’s condition had declined and a nursing assessment had to be arranged. Mr Y was eventually discharged to hospital B in October 2022 and he died two months later.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council about the delay in discharging Mr Y. The Council explained it could not progress until it received the referral from hospital A but apologised for not providing her with more information about the process.
9. Mrs X remains unhappy about the situation and wants us to find the Council at fault. Hospital A’s delay in formally referring Mr Y is not something the Council can be held responsible for. The evidence shows once the referral was sent the Council responded appropriately and did not cause an avoidable delay. The Council also responded to Mrs X’s complaint with a clear and detailed summary of the events that transpired and apologised for not providing more information about the process. These were reasonable actions for the Council to take.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to result in worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman