Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about how the Council handled charges for Miss X’s care since 2023. Some parts of this complaint are late and there appears no good reason why they could not have been brought to us sooner. For the remaining issues, further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr Z, acting on behalf of Miss X and Mrs Y, complains the Council decided Mrs Y while acting as Miss X’s deputy, deliberately deprived Miss X of capital to avoid care charges.
2. Mr Z also complains the Council incorrectly assessed and pursued Mrs Y for Miss X’s care fees. He says the Council’s actions caused Mrs Y undue stress by making unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and breach of duty, and by saying it may refer her to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
3. Mr Z seeks an apology, reimbursement of legal fees, confirmation the expenses did not amount to deprivation of Miss X’s capital, and a reassessment of the care home fees.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 achieve meaningful outcomes. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
6. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Since Mr Z made his complaint, Miss X has passed away.
11. Mr Z says the Council wrongly treated prepaid funeral costs as a deliberate deprivation of assets. He says Mrs Y told the Council about her plans in advance, but the Council did not warn her it might treat this spending as deprivation.
12. Mr Z also says the Council issued incorrect financial assessments and wrongly pursued Mrs Y for Miss X’s care charges. He further says the Council made allegations about Mrs Y’s conduct as deputy and said it would refer her to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
13. The Council says the expenditure amounted to deprivation of capital. It says it did not approve the spending in advance and that it carried out reassessments appropriately when it received new information.
14. The issues about incorrect financial assessments, which the Council later revised, relate to matters from 2023–2024. We consider this element of the complaint as late. As we normally expect a person to complain to us within 12 months of the issue they are complaining about.
15. Regarding the deprivation of assets, based on the evidence I have seen the Council considered the relevant guidance, evidence and circumstances before it decided to treat the funeral plan spending as deprivation of capital. This is a decision it was entitled to make.
16. Whilst Mrs Y was upset the Council said they may refer her handling as Miss X’s Deputy to the OPG, the Council has a duty to report concerns when it believes there is cause to do so. This again is a decision it was entitled to make, and I do not consider this action caused a Mrs Y a significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.
17. We do not act as an appeal body and cannot replace the Council’s judgement with our own. We consider only whether the Council followed the correct process when it made its decision.
18. Because the Council could not complete an accurate financial assessment until it received the necessary information and when it did It then reassessed and adjusted the care charges further investigation is unlikely to find fault.
19. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr Z seeks, as we do not usually award reimbursement of legal fees unless there is evidence of significant council disengagement which does not appear to be the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate this complaint because part of this complaint is late and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman