Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr C’s care planning and care charges. Part of the complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the remaining part. We will also not investigate her complaint about the Council’s communications about these matters. It is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the Council’s handling of the late Mr C’s care planning and care charges, and its poor communications about these matters with her and Mr C’s wife, Mrs C. Mrs B says this has caused Mrs C financial loss, distress and anxiety. She wants the Council to agree to only charge Mr C for his care from November 2024.

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’, 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B complains the Council did not involve Mrs C in Mr C’s care planning before Mr C was discharged from hospital into a care home in July 2023. She also said it did not carry out a post-discharge care needs review.
7. We will not investigate this part of Mrs B’s complaint because it is late. Mr C was discharged from hospital in July 2023 and Mrs B approached us in September 2025. I can see no good reason to consider this matter now.
8. Mrs B also complains about the Council’s decision to charge Mr C for his care from April 2024. She says it told Mrs C he would be charged from November 2024, but then changed its position.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said Mr C’s social worker had suggested November 2024 as the start date for care contributions, but as the Council first contacted Mrs C to start the financial assessment and discuss Mr C’s care costs in April 2024, it had decided it was reasonable to backdate Mr C’s contributions to this point. It acknowledged this decision had caused Mrs C distress and anxiety but said its final position was to charge Mr C for his care from April 2024.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mrs B’s complaint. The Council has explained how it decided the start date for Mr C’s care contributions. Mrs C was made aware Mr C would be charged for his care, subject to the outcome of the financial assessment, in April 2024. The Council’s decision to backdate charges to April 2024 appears appropriate. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
11. Mrs B also raises concerns about poor communication. She says:

• The Council did not follow up with Mrs C when she did not provide requested information.
• The delay allocating a social worker meant Mr and Mrs C missed out on appropriate information and support.

12. In its response, the Council accepted its communications could have been better. It said it should have followed up with Mrs C when she did not respond, and agreed it delayed allocating a social worker to Mr C. It also said its teams should have worked together more closely to identify outstanding work on the case. Overall, it upheld Mrs B’s complaint about this. It apologised to her and said it had since implemented service improvements. It said it would also remind its staff to provide appropriate and timely information in adult social care cases, and to follow cases up where it does not receive a response to information requests.
13. We will not investigate this part of Mrs B’s complaint. The Council’s acknowledgement, apology, and ongoing service improvements are an appropriate response. It is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr C’s care planning and care charges. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating its decision regarding the start date for Mr C’s care charges. We will also not investigate the Council’s communications. It is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman