Summary: Mr X says the Council incorrectly charged his disabled son for after care costs following his discharge from a hospital. No further action is needed as the complaint is not one the Ombudsman can deal with.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council incorrectly charged his disabled for after care costs following his discharge from hospital in 2009.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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

4. I reviewed the complaint and considered background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the Council’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to this service in 2014 that his son had been incorrectly charged by the Council for after care costs following his discharge from hospital in 2009. The complaint was premature as it had not been considered by the Council before Mr X contacted the Ombudsman.
6. Mr X said his son was not liable for the after-care costs because he was initially admitted to the hospital under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. His son was then kept on at the hospital after 28 days under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This meant that when he was eventually discharged, he would not be required to contribute to his after-care costs under Section 117 of the Act. Instead, Mr X says the Council charged his son for the full cost of his care. The charges amounted to over £11,000 as of early 2014.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in July 2014. It denied Mr X’s son was exempt from charges under Section 117. It directed Mr X to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
8. Mr X wrote to the Council again in August 2014. He says he did not receive a response. He contacted the Council again in 2017. It appears council officers discussed the matter with Mr X in 2016 and 2017 but there was no formal response in writing.
9. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman again in 2019 because he was frustrated the Council had not formally responded to his complaint.
10. A complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of a complainant’s awareness of the matter complained about. The evidence shows Mr X was aware of this matter in 2014. So, this complaint is caught by the time restriction.
11. I have considered whether there is good reason to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate complaints which are late. But I do not find good reasons to accept this complaint for investigation out of time.
12. Mr X was aware of the matter in 2014 but also received a complaint response from the Council which clearly pointed out the right to complain to this service if he remained dissatisfied. The Ombudsman must consider the exercise of his discretion fairly. It would not be fair to the Council for me to exercise discretion when the Council correctly explained how Mr X could pursue the complaint with this service.

Final decision

13. I closed this complaint because it is not one that the Ombudsman can investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman