Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council removed them as next of kin from their late friend, Mr Y’s record. It took Mrs X 17 months to complain to us. This is late and there are no good reasons to consider the matter now.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council removed them as their late friend, Mr Y's Next of kin (Nok) and excluded them from a meeting where it was decided Mr Y should contribute towards his care costs.
2. They said as a result they later paid his significant outstanding care fees which caused them avoidable distress. They want the Council to reinstate them as Mr Y's Nok and allow them to challenge the decision about his care fee contributions.

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 council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

NHS Continuing Healthcare Assessments

6. Where it appears a person may be eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CHC), councils must notify the relevant integrated care system (ICS). NHS CHC is a package of ongoing care arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a ‘primary health need’ as set out in the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care. Such care is provided to people aged 18 years or over, to meet needs arising from disability, accident or illness.

What happened

7. Mr Y, who had dementia and no close family, had named Mrs X as his Nok in 2014. The Council removed Mrs X from its records as Mr Y’s Nok in October 2022 without informing her.
8. Mr Y died in the care home in early 2024 and it emerged he had named Mr and Mrs X as beneficiaries in his will. As a result, they became responsible for settling his care home fees incurred between October 2022 and January 2024.
9. Between January and April 2024, Mr and Mrs X disputed the care home fees, believing Mr Y remained eligible for Continued Healthcare (CHC) funding. During this process, they learned that Mr Y's CHC funding had been ended following an assessment and meeting in October 2022 and that Mrs X had been removed as his Nok the day before the meeting.
10. In April 2025, Mrs X made a formal complaint, saying that had she remained recorded as Mr Y's Nok, she had been informed of the meeting and would have challenged the decision to end the CHC funding.

My findings

11. Mrs X was aware of their Nok entry being removed from the Council’s record in April 2024. It took Mrs X 17 months to complain to us about this matter. This is late and in line with paragraph three above, we cannot investigate a matter when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done and there are no good reasons why we should consider the matter now.

Back to top

Decision

12. We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to consider the matter now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman