Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not explain his mother’s short stay in a residential home would be chargeable until two months after the period in question. We will not investigate this late complaint. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain sooner, and due to the time lapsed we would not be able to fully investigate and come to sound conclusions. In any event, it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) stay at a care home was chargeable. It carried out a financial assessment after Mrs Y had left the home and sent an invoice to Mrs Y two months after her stay.

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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
5. I considered information the Council provided, which included complaints correspondence between it and Mr X.
6. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s mother, Mrs Y, stayed at a residential home in April 2018 after she had been discharged from hospital. Mr X believed this was rehabilitation with the aim of her returning home. He believed it was free of charge.
8. In June 2018, the Council wrote to Mr X, after completing a financial assessment for Mrs Y. It explained the amount due for the period of care Mrs Y received in April 2018.
9. Mr X made a formal complaint in November 2018. The Council sent its final response to Mr X in February 2019, signposting him to the Ombudsman.
10. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2019.
11. We expect complaints to be made within 12 months, aside from where there are good reasons for delay. There is not a good reason Mr X could not have complained to the Council sooner than November 2019, five months after he received the invoice. There is also not a good reason he could not have complained to us sooner than October 2019, which was eight months after the Council sent him its final complaint response. I have considered Mr X’s reasons for the delay, but they do not explain 13 months between Mr X taking substantive action.
12. The time that has passed since events means it would be more difficult now for us to come to sound conclusions. Explanations are less reliable where significant time has passed since events. Mrs Y has since passed away, and we could not say with confidence what happened during conversations the Council had with her in April 2018. The Council says Mrs Y had the mental capacity to make a decision about her care, and that it discussed how it charges for care with her at that time. Mr X provided medical records that support that explanation. Mental capacity is time-and decision-specific, and we could not say now whether Mrs Y had capacity in 2018.
13. In any event, it is unlikely we would find fault. Hospital notes show rehabilitation was discussed, but that it was found not to be appropriate. This was explained to another family member. Mrs Y was found to have capacity to make a decision about her care, and so the discussions were mostly held with her, in line with the law. Mrs Y had appointed Mr X as Lasting Power of Attorney for her finances, however because she had capacity to make a decision at that time, the Lasting Power of Attorney was not in effect. We should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there was not a good reason it was made late, and we could not come to a sound decision given the time that has passed since events. In any event, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman