Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Care Provider handled her late sister’s account. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Care Provider hindered her obtaining probate for her late sister’s estate. She disputed rent and energy deductions from her sisters account. She said the delay has caused great frustration. She wanted the Care provider to refund all monies taken after her sisters passing.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Miss X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained the Care Provider did not provide her with consistent information about her late sister’s account after she passed away in April 2025. Miss X said she was originally quoted one estimate figure from the Care Provider, which was later reduced.
6. In its complaint response, the Care Provider clarified the amount within Miss X’s late sister’s account. It explained the charges and refunds to the account and provided a copy of relevant bank statements.
7. The Care Provider told Miss X there were several matters outstanding for care charges, rent and utilities for her sister’s account. It explained the organisations behind these charges would only speak to the person who was administering Miss X’s late sister’s account. The Care Provider advised Miss X to continue with her probate application to administer the estate, based on the information they had provided. The Care Provider told Miss X that it would provide relevant contact information for organisations once Miss X had completed her probate application.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Care Provider sent Miss X a breakdown and explanation of charges on her late sister’s account. It also explained why it could not help Miss X further, because organisations involved would only speak to the person who was administering the estate. It advised Miss X to continue with her probate application to administer the estate.
9. Miss X also said the Care Provider had refused her subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that deals with concerns about how organisations handle people’s data. Only the ICO can decide whether the Care Provider should have refused the request, and compel it to release the report to Miss X if appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman