Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s care charges as we are unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes on matters that arose years ago and as any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation of remaining matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his grandfather Mr Y, that the Council:
• applied care charges in 2021 without completing a financial assessment;
• lost paperwork for disability related expenditure (“DRE”) in 2021;
• made incorrect decisions on DRE;
• billed for two carers when one/none attended;
• issued unexplained invoices;
• charged for the careline service in error from 2023 to December 2024; and
• failed to handle his complaints properly.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can decide whether to start an investigation or whether to only investigate part of a complaint made to us. When someone complains on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity, we may decide not to investigate because the events happened too long ago, meaning we are unlikely to be able to reach reliable conclusions and/or unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Given the time passed it is unlikely we can reach reliable conclusions or achieve meaningful outcomes on events arising in 2021. I will therefore not investigate Mr X’s complaints about charges applied in 2021 without a financial assessment and paperwork lost in 2021.
7. In August 2025 Mr X complained the Council had made incorrect decisions on Mr Y’s DRE. In its complaint response the Council noted Mr X had not challenged any information in the last financial assessment of May 2025. However, it would now review Mr Y’s care needs including a review of DRE. Further investigation by us would not lead out a different outcome.
8. Mr X queried the Council’s charges for two carers when either one or none attended. Documents show Mr X queried invoices issued up to August 2024. It is unlikely we can reach reliable conclusions or achieve meaningful outcomes in relation to charges applied then. Regarding any recent billing, I note the Council explained Mr Y was properly charged for the hours of care delivered and this was payable whether one or two carers attended. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify an investigation.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaints that the Council has failed to provide data requested.
10. Most of Mr X’s queries about unexplained invoices relate to those issued before 1 November 2024. It is unlikely we can reach reliable conclusions or achieve meaningful outcomes in relation to charges applied then. I note Mr X queried two recent invoices in his August 2025 complaint. The Council offered an explanation in its stage 1 response and Mr X did not challenge this further. If Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s explanation it is open to him to seek further clarification. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify an investigation.
11. Mr X complains Mr Y was charged for a careline service in error from 2023 to 18 December 2024. It is unlikely we can reach reliable conclusions or achieve meaningful outcomes in relation to charges applied in the past. However, in response to Mr X’s complaint the Council explained Mr Y was not charged for this service given he only paid a contribution towards his care costs. Given this, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
12. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman