Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint that his mother had to pay additional respite care costs because of delay in fixing the stairlift in her home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs C, that Mrs C had to pay additional respite care costs because of delay in fixing the stairlift in her home.

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)
4. 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

5. I have considered the information Mr B provided and given him an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs C had booked a stay in a care home for respite care in November 2018. There is a grant funded stairlift in her home. Mr B has provided a record to show he made a call to the stairlift supplier in early November 2018. He said that was when he reported the stairlift was broken. Mr B said the stairlift company visited two or three times and then the stairlift became completely unusable. This was four days before the start of Mrs C’s planned respite stay.
7. When it replied to Mr B’s complaint initially, the Council said an officer from its brokerage team had visited him in late November 2018. She agreed to contact the stairlift company. The Council said its officer had suggested the possibility of moving Mrs C’s bed downstairs so she could return home. The stairlift company failed to complete all the repairs needed until after Christmas 2018.
8. Mr B told us he initially disputed the bill for the entire period of Mrs C’s respite stay. The Council then agreed to waive the cost of two weeks’ stay. The Council issued a bill to Mrs C in January 2019.
9. When the Council replied in 2020 to an enquiry from Mr B’s councillor, it said respite is a chargeable service for all. The Council said there are many occasions when somebody may have a longer stay than planned because of unforeseen circumstances.
10. In most cases, we cannot investigate if a complainant has not complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter. Mr B has told us he had to get support from a charity and a councillor to pursue his complaint. But his complaint to us is well outside the twelve-month period starting from the time Mrs C received the Council’s bill. In any case, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. That is because the Council was under no obligation to reduce the cost of the chargeable respite care service because of the stairlift provider’s failure to complete the stairlift repair in a shorter time period.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this late complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman