As mentioned on here previously, my mother was deemed CHC eligible (after waiting 6 years for it) from 2009 until it was taken away again by the NHS in 2013, as she was again deemed ineligible. Apart from all the whys and wherefores of the DST (best work of fiction since Shakespeare), the assessment was undertaken in August 2012 and the Joint Decision Panel sat in August 2013 (no misprint). The NHS Framework Document for CHC explicitly states, and states it more than once, this process should not normally exceed 28 days. It also explains why this timescale is so important - it is so that the decision panel has reliable and up-to-date information on which to base their decision. Seems reasonable. The CCG have bullied, lied and cajoled their way through this when we complained including at the appeal panel, saying quite staggeringly, when cornered, that the rules "don't apply" to my mum. Needless to say we're pursuing all that through other channels. But it occurred to me too - what on earth was the LA rep on the decision panel doing, in actually agreeing to sign off the recommendation of the DST? Common sense and / or professional integrity should have rung alarm bells, and that individual should have, in the family's view, declined to make a decision based on this completely farcical situation and unreliable evidence. I doubt anyone on here will be overly surprised when I say it was more a case of "Where do I sign?" The LA rep said in the decision letter my mum was "within the scope of the care the LA could lawfully provide". How did she know, having never set eyes on my mum, and using CH records dating back 15 months and not less than a year old? For example, the DST says my mum was attending social functions, whereas by the time of the decision panel, and a long time before, she was totally immobile and her general health condition was continuing to deteriorate. So I took the case to the LA (not Health) Ombudsman stating this was a serious case of maladministration. Today the LA Ombudsman wrote to say, because it's a "NHS decision", the matter will not be investigated. Note: Not that our case "isn't upheld", but it won't even be investigated. So why do the LA even turn up at a decision panel, if they have no powers, no influence and clearly haven't the wherewithal to "whistle blow" when the CHC assessment process is being so conspicuously disregarded? And where there's a clearly defined framework, surely such a serious and conscious deviation from the guidelines is a dereliction of duty in public office. And they're failing to provide my mum with the consideration she deserves and is entitled to under statute. But the LA Ombudsman then thinks there's no case to answer. Again, if the LA Ombudsman will not investigate such an obvious case of maladministration, what they do all day? (Worry about parking tickets and unemptied bins, presumably). So the stonewalling continues - almost 2 years of this now, and 11 years since my mum went into the CH. Has anyone else approached the LA Ombudsman, and anyone know if there's any hope of redress other than legal action? Is there an Ombudsman Ombudsman LOL? Thanks for reading: Just helps to share.