Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not reimburse the complainant for alleged overpayments his family made in meeting his late mother’s care needs. This is because the complaint concerns historical events since 2010 and is therefore late. The passage of time means there is no realistic prospect of us reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) is making a complaint on behalf of his late mother (Mrs Q) who died in 2017. Mr X alleges that in the years before Mrs Q’s death, the family overpaid the amount that was required to contribute towards the costs of her care needs. He says approximately £75,000 was overpaid which ought to have been met by the Council. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to reimburse the overpaid amount to Mrs Q’s family.

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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. I recognise Mr X’s case is complex and the above summary of the issues does not fully set out referenced events between 2010 and 2018 which forms the basis of the complaint. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to consider historical matters. The provision I outline at paragraph two (above) inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints about recent events and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint far sooner.
5. I considered whether there are any good reasons to exercise our discretion and disapply the time limit referred to. It is my view however there would be practical limitations on our ability to investigate now. My reasons include:
1. There would be difficulties in establishing the material facts with reasonable confidence and gathering sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement.
2. We cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. It is therefore likely to be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was any maladministration by the Council.
3. It is likely to be more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy in Mr X’s case, given the length of time that has already passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of the parties.
6. I do not therefore consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision in Mr X’s case. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns historical events and is therefore late. The passage of time means there is no realistic prospect of us reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman