Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms Z up to the end of 2022. The complaint is late and I can see no good reason to exercise my discretion and investigate now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the care Ms Z received at home prior to her death around the end of 2022 and the Council’s view that Ms Z had capacity. He also says Ms Z probably qualified for Continuing Health Care.
2. Mr X says Ms Z’s death had a significant impact on her family members.
3. He wants the Council to admit the care was poor, apologise to the family members, waive the outstanding fees Ms Z’s estate owes and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms Z died towards the end of 2022. Just under 12 months later, one of Ms Z’s family members, (Y), complained about the care Ms Z received.
9. The Council responded and did not uphold Y’s complaint. It explained how Y could escalate their complaint. There is no evidence that happened.
10. Mr X says he also made a complaint about Ms Z’s care at about the same time Y did. He said the Council did not accept him as a suitable representative and so would not accept his complaint.
11. In January 2025, Mr X was appointed by the court as Ms Z’s personal representative. He raised the same complaints again.
12. He was unhappy with the Council’s response, which remained limited because the Council did not consider Mr X should have access to Ms Z’s social care records. Mr X complained to us.
13. The law says we cannot investigate complaints where the person has been aware of the matters they are complaining about for more than 12 months, unless we decide there are good reasons.
14. Mr X has been aware of matters he complains about for over two years. If he was unhappy with the Council’s decision that he was an unsuitable representative, as well as Ms Z’s care, he could have complained to us at the time. It is likely we would have made findings on whether the Council had acted with fault when it decided Mr X was unsuitable. It would also have been open to us, regardless of those findings, to consider whether to investigate Mr X’s complaints about Ms Z’s care under our wider powers. I can see no good reason to exercise my discretion and investigate now.
15. Also of relevance is the fact the Council considered Ms Z to have capacity. I have seen no evidence from Mr X to doubt that. Ms Z would, therefore, have been able to either provided consent for Mr X to act as her representative or bring a complaint herself about her care.
16. The Council responded appropriately to a similar complaint in 2023 brought by Y. Therefore, it has already dealt with the matters around Ms Z’s care. It was open to Y to escalate their complaint and then come to the Ombudsman at the time if they wished. The fact Mr X has only recently been able to complain does not mean the Council must reinvestigate the same matters again.
17. Mr X also complains the Council should have assessed Ms Z for Continual Health Care funding. If Mr X had any concerns about this, he should have raised them at the time and then come to us if he was unhappy with the Council’s response. It is too late now to achieve anything meaningful.
18. Lastly, one of Mr X’s substantive outcomes is for the Council to waive the outstanding fees owed by Ms Z’s estate. That is not something we would look to achieve from an investigation. Ms Z received care and so she, or her estate, would be expected to pay for it. Even if we investigated and found fault, we would most likely only consider a small symbolic payment for distress to any family members affected. We would not make a symbolic payment to remedy any distress to Ms Z as she has died.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman