Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in the late Mrs Y’s social care. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. We cannot achieve anything meaningful now regarding Mrs Y’s care and the family’s involvement when Mrs Y was alive. Some points are more appropriately for the Information Commissioner. The Council has now replied to Mr X’s complaint, so we need not ask it to reply. If Mr X believes the Council is demanding the wrong amount for Mrs Y’s care, he can argue that point if the Council takes the estate to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about matters related to the Council's involvement in his late mother, Mrs Y, receiving residential care. Mrs Y moved into residential care in 2021. Sadly, Mrs Y has since died.

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. 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 normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council did not invite him to any reviews of his mother’s care from 2021 onwards. I note the Council has apologised for one incident, when it did not properly involve Mrs Y’s family in a ‘best interests’ meeting. The restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before July 2023, which was 12 months before Mr X first complained to us. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner about any lack of involvement. Moreover, as Mrs Y has sadly died, we could not achieve anything meaningful now in terms of whether the Council failed to involve Mr X properly when Mrs Y was alive. It would be a disproportionate use of resources to investigate those events now.
8. When Mr X first complained to us in July 2024, he said the Council had not given him all the documents it should have. I understand the Council might thereafter have shared some records with Mr X, as he later told the Council he believed the records were inaccurate. This part of the complaint is about the Council’s data-handling: whether it has shared data properly and the accuracy of data. The Information Commissioner has the expertise and power to decide those matters. It would be more appropriate for the Information Commissioner than for the Ombudsman to consider this.
9. When Mr X contacted us in July 2024, he said the Council had not replied substantively to his complaint. He wanted the Council to respond. After that, the Council provided complaint responses in October and December 2024. We cannot now achieve more in respect of the Council replying to Mr X’s complaint.
10. A matter underlying Mr X’s complaint was his concern at receiving, in his role as executor of his mother’s estate, an invoice from the Council for £39,000 of care fees. A firm of solicitors had acted as Mrs Y’s deputy for financial affairs. If Mr X believes the deputy was at fault for not resolving this matter when they were involved, he can raise that with the Office of the Public Guardian, which regulates such matters. If Mr X believes the National Health Service should have covered some or all of the fees, he can ask the NHS to assess that retrospectively. Meanwhile, the Council’s invoice remains due. Mrs Y received care that incurred costs. The Council has given reasons for believing the amount it seeks is correct, with reference to the types of fees incurred, to the Council’s decisions that Mrs Y did not qualify for more NHS funding, and to some invoices not having been paid. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add much. Ultimately, the Council cannot make the estate pay unless the Council gets a court order. If Mr X believes the Council’s demand is wrong, he can wait and see if the Council takes court action, then argue his case in court. The court would then decide the matter. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to do this if, in his role as executor of the estate, he believes the Council is asking the estate for an incorrect sum.
11. The Council offered Mr X £250 to recognise some communication and complaint-handling failings. It would be disproportionate for us to consider this point further when we are not investigating the substantive underlying points of complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. We cannot achieve anything meaningful now regarding Mrs Y’s care and the family’s involvement when Mrs Y was alive. Some points are more appropriately for the Information Commissioner. The Council has now replied to Mr X’s complaint, so we need not ask it to reply. If Mr X believes the Council is demanding the wrong amount for Mrs Y’s care, he can wait for the Council to take the estate to court and then argue his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman