Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the completion of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment. The complaint is late, with no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. We will not investigate Mr X’s further complaint about funding for nursing care because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about delays in a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment being carried out for his mother (Y). Mr X also complained a decision support tool (DST) assessment was not completed when Y was discharged from hospital, back into the care of the Care Provider.
2. Mr X said this potentially breached Y’s human rights and led to Y self-funding nursing care, without an assessment for continuing healthcare (CHC) or funded nursing care (FNC).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Y was in residential care from September 2017, until she sadly passed away in April 2026.
9. Mr X complained Y did not receive a DoLS assessment, until January 2023, despite believing she likely needed assessing before then.
10. As outlined in paragraph four, we cannot investigate complaints where a person has been aware of a matter for more than 12 months. The available evidence suggests Mr X was aware of this for more than 12 months before complaining to the Ombudsman in November 2025.
11. There are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider this matter now. In any case, given Y has sadly passed away, there would likely be nothing worthwhile achievable by us investigating. We would be unable to remedy any injustice.
12. Mr X also complained the Care Provider did not identify a DST assessment had not been completed when Y was discharged from hospital in January 2022. Mr X appears to have become aware of this issue in July 2025, when a DST assessment was completed. As a result, FNC was awarded to Y.
13. Mr X believed Y was likely eligible for FNC earlier but instead had been self-funding for nursing care costs. Mr X sought compensation for self-funded care costs.
14. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating here. Mr X could apply for a retrospective CHC assessment, through his local integrated care board (ICB). The ICB can consider what Y’s nursing needs were from 2022 onwards and decide whether it should award backdated CHC.
15. We cannot backdate CHC and there is likely no other worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of it is late and for the remainder there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman