Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with his late father Mr Y’s care fees and it not always contacting him directly about the fees. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is the executor of his late father Mr Y’s estate. Mr Y was in a care home placement commissioned by the Council. Mr X complains the Council:
1. delayed in dealing with the matter of Mr Y’s care fees;
2. did not direct all communication about the fees to him.
2. Mr X says he was caused anxiety while Mr Y’s care fee costs were unknown and outstanding, just before Mr Y died and in the time after. He says dealing with the matter and the complaint with the Council has been time-consuming and stressful. Mr X wants the Council to reduce the care fees due from the estate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council took several months from the date Mr Y entered the care home in late 2023 to determine Mr Y would be a self-funder. The Council accepts it had the information it needed to find Mr Y had assets which made him a self‑funder at that time, but asked for it again. Officers recognised in April 2024they already had the information they needed. There was fault by the Council in requesting information it had received, which led to fault of delay in finishing its financial assessment. But Mr X is not disputing the fees sought by the Council or that Mr Y was a self-funder so this fault has not affected the fees amount. The Council then invoiced for Mr Y’s care fees after his death. Any delay in determining Mr Y’s outstanding fees at that stage could have delayed Mr X resolving and disbursing the estate. We recognise Mr Y’s care fee issues required Mr X to have contacts and make a complaint to the Council, taking time and causing stress. But these impacts of the Council’s delays do not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating.
6. Mr X complains about the Council not corresponding with him instead of Mr Y about the fees. Where a service user has capacity to manage their own affairs, councils would deal with them directly about fees. The Council says Mr Y did not lack capacity and there were no decisions in place, such as a Power of Attorney decision, requiring officers to correspond with Mr X or anyone other than Mr Y. Once Mr Y gave Mr X permission to deal with the Council for him, officers corresponded with Mr X. Even if the Council sent correspondence to Mr Y instead of Mr X in error, it is more likely than not given Mr X’s involvement with Mr Y that Mr X would have been aware of that contact and able to act on it. We recognise Mr X and Mr Y may have been annoyed if some correspondence went to Mr Y instead of Mr X. But there is insufficient significant personal injustice from this issue to justify us investigating.
7. The remedy Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to reduce the care fees owed by Mr Y’s estate. But the fees do not stem from the Council’s faults and Mr Y received the care at the home for which payment has been sought. We cannot require a council to waive part of the care fees properly incurred during a resident’s time at the home as a remedy. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman