Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed Mr X’s care and related charges. The substantive parts of Mr X’s complaint are late and there is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing these matters to us. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome in relation to events that are not late.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to us about the actions of the Council, and of a Care Provider the Council commissioned. His complaints about the Council included:
1. lack of person-centred care planning;
2. lack of any assessment of his mental capacity;
3. suspension of his direct payments due to wrongful allegations he had mismanaged them, and miscalculation of his contribution to care costs; and
4. lack of proper coordination with another council (Council B) when he moved from the Council’s area in early 2023, and subsequent actions after he had moved.
2. Mr X’s complaints about the Care Provider included not involving him in decision-making and mismanagement of his medication.
3. Mr X said his care needs have not been met since 2020, and said his health and quality of life have significantly worsened as a result. He also said the matter has impacted his finances. He wanted recognition of fault, reviews and audits, explanations and service improvements. He wanted financial redress for a period of unfunded care and what he considered unlawful financial demands made of him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 or care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there are good reasons for delay. Mr X complained to us in April 2025. His complaint is largely about events that occurred, and of which he was aware, before April 2024.
9. Complaints a), b) and c) above are matters Mr X became aware of between 2021 and 2023. Mr X received complaint responses from the Care Provider in 2022 and could have escalated that matter to us then. Mr X had support from a solicitor in late 2023 and was already challenging the Council in relation to his direct payments and charges for care at that time. These matters could have been escalated to us in late 2023 or early 2024.
10. Mr X told us he has since raised a complaint about his solicitor. I have considered whether his concerns about his solicitor impacted his ability to complain to us. I have also considered the health issues Mr X has told us about. I am satisfied, however, Mr X could have asked someone else to contact us to escalate his complaint if he did not feel able to do so himself in early 2024. It was not necessary to gather any significant amount of information before contacting us. 12 months passed between the solicitor’s last substantive correspondence with the Council in April 2024 and Mr X contacting us. We will not now investigate these late matters.
11. Complaint d) is about events between March 2023 and July 2024. Some of these events occurred more than 12 months before Mr X came to us, but he may not have had full knowledge of the Council’s duties when someone moves into another council area until a later date. I have therefore considered this part of his complaint further.
12. The Council has acknowledged it should have contacted Council B to notify it of Mr X’s move and need for a care assessment. It has apologised to Mr X for not doing so. We will not further explore this matter, because in any event:
• Mr X says he wanted no further involvement from this Council after he had left its area, and says he actively chose not to make it aware that he had moved. It is not clear at what point the Council became aware of Mr X’s move, but Mr X was aware in March 2023 that he had moved into Council B’s area and it was open to him to contact Council B at that point.
• Mr X was not actively receiving a care package from the Council when he moved. This was because of the earlier disputes relating to direct payments and him having declined an offer of a commissioned care package in order to keep his brother as his personal assistant instead. There is insufficient evidence the Council, in not having notified Council B of the move, was responsible for any subsequent lack of care package in Council B’s area.
• There is therefore nothing further we could achieve via further investigation of this part of the complaint. The Council’s apology is sufficient.
13. The Council has also accepted it wrongly sent Mr X an invoice in early 2025, and apologised for this. There is nothing further we could achieve by investigating this matter either.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council not having closed Mr X’s case until 2024. Despite Mr X wanting no further involvement with the Council after his move, it was not fault for it to remain in contact with Council B to support Council B’s process in transitioning Mr X’s needs for care and support.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is mostly late, and there is not a good reason for the delay in those matters being brought to the Ombudsman. We could not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome by investigating more recent events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman