Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council care charges to his late mother Mrs X, care staff breaking her door lock, inadequate care, and it influencing her to cut contact with him. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. Investigating care staff or officer influence over Mrs X would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X is the late Mrs X’s son. Mrs X received care services commissioned by the Council before she died in spring 2025. Mr X complains:
1. the Council charged Mrs X for care provision she did not use, including while she was in hospital;
2. care staff broke Mrs X’s front door lock;
3. the care firm failed to provide Mrs X with appropriate care;
4. the Council or care staff manipulated Mrs X to decide not to keep in contact with him.
2. Mr X says he has not suffered financial loss from the matters complained of but is not happy Mrs X or her estate has paid for the care and the lock. Mr X is distressed he could not contact Mrs X in the months before her death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• 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

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised complaints about charges made to Mrs X and care provided to her, outlined above as complaints a) to c). Mrs X would be the person primarily affected by those concerns. Since Mrs X has died, we could not now remedy any injustice to her from the care she received, nor the costs for that care and the broken lock. We cannot provide remedies to people who have died so will not investigate these issues.
6. We understand Mr X is annoyed on his late mother’s behalf and her estate regarding the care matters and the cost of the lock. But he has stated he has not suffered his own financial loss from these issues and . There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters raised to warrant an investigation.
7. Regarding issue d) above, Mr X accepts in his complaint documents that he may not be able to prove his belief that staff or officers manipulated Mrs X into ending contact with him. We recognise Mrs X’s decision, made a short time before her death, caused Mr X distress. But investigation by us of this allegation now would not enable us to make a finding that Council or care staff influenced Mrs X’s in her decision. An investigation of this matter would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X, so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice to him from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and
• investigating care staff or Council officer influence over Mrs X’s decision not to keep in contact with him would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman