Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the level of care provided to her late relative and overcharging prior to 2016 because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, given the lapse of time since the events complained about. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council taking enforcement action in respect of outstanding care costs because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council was threatening court action to recover outstanding care fees in relation to a deceased relative, Ms Y. Ms X said the Council had overcharged Ms Y and that Ms Y had not received the support she was entitled to in the care home. Ms X says the enforcement action, which she says could leave another relative, Mr Z, homeless, has caused significant stress for her and Mr Z. She also says she has been put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council to resolve the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms Y lived in a property that she jointly owned with Mr Z. Following her move to a care home, Mr Z applied to be her deputy so he could manage her money. In the meantime, the Council paid the care costs it had assessed Ms Y as needing to pay towards the cost of her care. The Council put a legal charge over the property as security for the costs. Ms Y died in 2016, and Mr Z became the sole owner of the property. The Council said care fees of £89k were outstanding.
6. Ms X told us the family’s solicitors contacted the Council about the outstanding sum in 2017 and raised concerns about overcharging. She said there were meetings with the family, in which the Council promised not to make Mr Z homeless by enforcing the charge, but the Council did not provide meeting notes. She said the family had suggested the Council buy the property and allow Mr Z to live there as a tenant as a way of resolving the matter.
7. The Council contacted Mr Z about the outstanding costs in early 2020. It said it could not postpone recovery of the outstanding care costs indefinitely. It suggested Mr Z either sell the property or explore the possibility of equity release. By late 2023, the Council had issued a Letter of Claim, which Mr Z did not respond to, so it said it would start court action against him.
8. In early 2024, the Council contacted Ms X, who was now acting as Mr Z’s representative, to set out possible options to address the outstanding debt. During these early communications, Ms X made a formal complaint and the Council responded in March 2024. It did not accept there was evidence of overcharging, considered its communications about the options had been clear and said it had no record of the meetings Ms X had referred to.
9. In early October 2024, the Council tried to arrange a meeting with Ms X. This did not happen until December. The meeting minutes record Ms X agreed to explore the possibility of equity release. In January 2025 the Council wrote to her asking for an update. When she did not reply, the Council wrote again in February and said it would start court action if it had not heard from her by the end of the week.
10. In late 2025, the Council agreed to postpone enforcement action on the basis the family actively explored the equity release option to repay the outstanding sum.

My assessment

11. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X complained to us, on behalf of herself and Mr Z, in August 2025 about events going back to at least 2015, which means the complaint is mostly late. There is no indication that Ms X or another family member could not have complained earlier and no good reason to decide to investigate now.
12. In relation to the complaint about the level of care provided to Ms Y, it is unlikely that sufficient records will be available to assess whether there was fault. Further, we cannot remedy the injustice caused to someone who has died. Therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by investigating now.
13. In relation to the complaint about care fees, again it is unlikely there will be sufficient records available now to determine whether there was overcharging ten or more years ago. In its complaint response the Council said there was no evidence of overcharging, and the fact the outstanding care fees were high, for what I understand was a three-year residence in a care home does not, of itself, indicate fault. We will not consider this further because it is unlikely further investigation would add to the Council’s complaint response.
14. In relation to the enforcement action, the Council is entitled to take enforcement action in relation to outstanding care costs, and that can include starting court action. The family do not dispute there are outstanding costs, nor that there is a valid legal charge over the property. Whilst Ms X is unhappy that the Council has not replied quickly to her communications and has not always provided the level of clarity she seeks when responding to her questions, and the Council has not provided a definitive answer to her proposal that it buys the property and allows Mr Z to live in it, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome in relation to the level of care provided or overcharging prior to Ms Y’s death in 2016. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council is tak9ing enforcement action to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman