Summary: We will not investigate this complaint concerning the Council’s care planning for Ms X’s relative. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome. Two remaining complaint items are premature and too early for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X alleges multiple failings in the Council’s handling of her relative’s adult social care planning and funding.
2. Ms X says the Council delayed in providing her relative’s care plan, failed to check CHC eligibility, failed to accept her as the documented attorney, failed to provide accurate care charging information, failed to provide updated deferred payment information and failed to reconsider her continuing concerns.
3. Ms X says she has suffered extreme stress and inconvenience including her having to move out of her relative’s house with her child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to

investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaint in 2023, and produced a detailed 30-page report, about what happened when Ms X’s relative came out of hospital and was placed in a care home. Its investigation upheld 8 out of the 12 complaint elements Ms X had raised. These upheld items were mainly around delays and lack of information from the Council during the care needs and financial assessment processes. The Council provided a remedy by acknowledging and apologising to Ms X for its delays and poor communication.
9. In 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s request for a review of her complaint. It said that, while it noted she did not agree with the 2023 complaint outcome, it did not consider her complaint could be reinvestigated. It acknowledged Ms X’s request for her relative’s house to be disregarded in the financial assessment for the care charges. It refused her request and said the Council had to follow national guidance and the law.
10. The Council responded to our enquiry when we checked for any recent responses to Ms X recently. The Council tells us it does not consider there to be any significant new issues, apart for two complaint elements. The new elements refer to the Council allegedly not accepting Ms X as the attorney and about Ms X lacking an updated deferred payment agreement.
11. We will not investigate as we are unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcomes. The substantive issues raised [concerns about care planning, financial assessments, and the Council’s handling of charging arrangements] relate to events dating back to at least 2022–2023. The Council investigated and upheld most of Ms X’s complaint.
12. The Council did not uphold the complaints concerning the outcomes of the care needs and financial charging assessments. It found those decisions had been reached properly including by being referred to a charging panel.
13. The information I have seen to date, shows the Council considered the relevant information, the law and national guidance before reaching those outcomes including by referring to a charging review process. While I appreciate Ms X disagrees with those outcomes, disagreement alone does not indicate fault. As there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault, we are unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome.
14. The potentially new matters are premature as they were not part of the Council’s 2023 investigation. It is open to Ms X to raise this with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcomes now. The other two issues are premature and too early for us to consider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman