Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the support a Council provided to someone between 2016 and 2018. The complaint relates to matters that occurred more than 12 months ago and, as such, is late for our consideration.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains:

• About the service provided by the Kent Enablement at Home Service for his late mother, Mrs B, in 2016.
• That the Council failed to recognise the impact of Mrs B’s dementia and incorrectly concluded she was independent in 2018.
• That he had to chase up OT equipment for Mrs B.
• That the Council failed to provide suitable support to him as a carer.

2. Mr A would like to see the organisations take responsibility for their actions and to implement service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr A’s written complaint along with papers we obtained from the Council and from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). In addition, I considered relevant legislation. I shared a confidential version of this draft decision with Mr A and considered the comments he provided on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B lived at home and received some support from Kent Enablement at Home between 2016 and 2018. In December 2018, following an admission to hospital, Mrs B moved into a nursing home. She remained there until she sadly died in January 2019.
6. In October 2019 Mr A wrote to the Council and complained about various matters relating to the care it had provided for Mrs B between July 2016 and May 2018.
7. The Council replied in November 2019. For several of Mr A’s concerns the Council said it could not investigate the specifics due to the length of time that had passed since the events took place. It provided some general information about its services along with apologies for the circumstances Mr A described.
8. Mr A contacted the Council again in February 2021 and raised further concerns about the support provided to Mrs B from 2016 to 2019. The Council replied and said it had closed its case in 2019 following its initial response. It said it could not respond any further as too much time had passed.
9. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman in July 2021.

Findings

10. The evidence suggests that Mr A was aware of his concerns – about the Council’s support for Mrs B and for him as her carer – at the time the events took place.
11. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman in July 2021, more than 12 months after he knew of his concerns. As such, the complaint is late. We have discretion to investigate late complaints and I have considered whether we should do so in this case.
12. Mr A advised that he could not pursue his concerns while Mrs B was alive as he was caring for her 19 hours a day. He said this, alongside his own ill health and looking after six animals, meant he did not have the time to raise complaints. Further, Mr A said after Mrs B died in January 2019 he could not make a complaint earlier than October 2019 as he had been grieving.
13. During the period between the Council’s initial response (in November 2019) and his follow up complaint to the Council (in February 2021) Mr A made new complaints or continued ongoing ones with three other organisations. To my understanding Mr A had received the final response from all the NHS organisations he complained to by July 2020. There was then a gap of seven months until he recontacted the Council, and then a gap of another five months before he got in touch with the Ombudsman.
14. The complaint Mr A submitted to the Ombudsman is fairly brief and broad with few specific dates and details. On the face of it this did not take a considerable amount of time to prepare, write or submit. On balance, it would have been reasonable to have undertaken this work earlier, while also engaged in complaints with other organisations.
15. In view of this, there is no good reason to justify setting aside the time limit in this case. Further, even if we were to do so, there seems little prospect that an investigation would be able to reach a fair and meaningful decision. The Council itself gave only a generic response to some issues because of the time that had already elapsed when it responded. While contemporaneous records may provide some information there is little prospect of adding meaningfully to this through staff recollections. Further, given the considerable passage of time it is probable that policies and procedures have also changed in the interim which would have implications in terms of Mr A’s desire to see service improvements.
16. Therefore, I have not found a good reason why the Ombudsmen should consider this late complaint.

Back to top

Decision

17. The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr A’s complaint as it is late and there are no clear reasons to set the time limit aside. We have closed our case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman