Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about delay in a deprivation of liberty being authorised in a care home. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unauthorised deprivation of his father’s (Mr Y’s) liberty in a care home. He said the Care Provider also did not properly respond to his complaint.
2. Mr X said the matter caused significant distress for the family and had a significant impact on Mr Y. He also said the matter had implications for the care of others. He wanted the Care Provider to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y moved into a care home in October 2022. The Care Provider applied for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) authorisation. It chased the local authority (the ‘Supervisory Body’) in 2023 and a standard authorisation was ultimately issued by the Supervisory Body in May 2024.
8. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Care Provider in July 2025, after obtaining legal advice. He brought his complaint to us in December 2025.
9. The law says people must bring complaints to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there are good reasons. Mr X was aware by May 2024 at the latest that a DOLS authorisation had been granted for Mr Y in relation to restrictions that had been in place since 2022. While Mr X’s later legal advice may have armed him with more information about the law, he had sufficient information by May 2024 at the latest to seek legal advice and begin the complaints process if he was concerned Mr Y’s rights had not been upheld.
10. Mr X highlighted that the Care Provider had not issued a formal complaint response by the time he complained to us, five months after his complaint to it. I have considered this as part of understanding the overall context of the timescales. However, at the time of Mr X’s complaint to the Care Provider, at least 14 months had already passed since he became aware of the matter.
11. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining, so we will not investigate this late complaint.
12. In any event, if we decided to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint, it is unlikely doing so would lead to a different outcome. This is because:
• The Care Provider applied for a DOLS authorisation shortly after Mr Y moved into its care, so we would likely not find the Care Provider was responsible for subsequent delays;
• The Supervisory Body is the body responsible for managing and prioritising any backlog in applications it receives; and
• Mr X has not, in any event, indicated disagreement with the restrictions Mr Y is, or was, subject to. It is not clear what would have been different for Mr Y but for the delays.
13. It is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaint-handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter. We will therefore also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint because there is not a good reason for the delay in him complaining about the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman