Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr B could not have complained to us sooner. In addition, we cannot achieve the remedy Mr B wants which is for the Council to write off the debt, only a court could decide that.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council wrongly backdated care charges for his father’s (Mr C’s) care to 2016, resulting in Mr B receiving an invoice for care fees in 2021 totalling over £100,000. The Council has failed to promptly respond to correspondence about the issue. The debt came as a shock as Mr B always paid Mr C’s care invoices. Mr B says the Council’s poor response has had an impact on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says it found out in 2021 that Mr C’s wife died in 2015; so, it should have considered his property in the financial assessment to calculate his contribution towards his residential care fees.
6. The Council recalculated and found Mr C should have paid more towards his care support. The Council backdated its calculations and wrote to Mr B accordingly, because Mr C died at the start of 2021.
7. Mr B has known of the debt since June 2021 but first raised his complaint with the Ombudsman in October 2022, therefore this is a late complaint in accordance with paragraph two.
8. Although the Council failed to respond to Mr B’s correspondence, and then that from his solicitor, that did not prevent Mr B bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe, which we consider to be twelve months of becoming aware of the issue.
9. Mr B is the executor of Mr C’s estate, which means he is responsible to not unreasonably delay distributing the estate. Mr B must be satisfied over any estate liabilities before he can distribute. There are no good reasons why Mr B could not have brought his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner, especially as he has a professional representative who could have advised him on this. But even if he did, we cannot conclude the debt is not rightly due. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council conducted the financial assessment. The dispute over whether the estate is liable for the debt would have to be resolved in court.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons why Mr B did not complain to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman