Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about problems at a residential care home. This is because the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her partner Mr Y received inadequate care in a residential care home that the Council arranged and also that the Council moved Mr Y elsewhere. Miss X states this caused Mr X to suffer from neglect and she suffered stress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) Here, as the Council arranged Mr Y’s placement in the care home, we consider the Council ultimately responsible. So we treat this complaint as a complaint against the Council.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Miss X provided and brief details from the Council about its involvement with Mr Y’s care.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council arranged for Mr Y to enter a care home, ‘Home Z.’ Mr Y lived there until March 2017. He then went into hospital, from where he moved elsewhere in May 2017. Sadly, Mr Y died in 2019.
7. In late 2017 and early 2018, Miss X complained about the care provided in Home Z. Miss X’s concerns covered matters relating to Mr Y’s comfort and general care, medical matters and matters related to clothing and belongings. Home Z upheld some points of the complaint, apologised and described what it was doing to reduce the chances of the identified faults recurring.
8. Home Z’s final response to Miss X’s complaint on 12 July 2018 stated Miss X could complain to the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied. Miss X complained to us on 17 October 2019.
9. We cannot now put right any injustice to Mr Y because he has passed away. However, I accept the events described also caused Miss X worry and distress, which were injustices to her. So I have considered the complaint on that basis.
10. Miss X knew she was dissatisfied with Home Z’s care in March 2017. That was two years and seven months before Miss X complained to us. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies.
11. I realise that before complaining to us, Miss X complained to Home Z. However, I note she did not complain to Home Z until nine months after Mr Y had left it albeit for some of that time Miss X was obtaining help from an advocate to complain. In any event, Home Z told Miss X she could complain to us 15 months before she did so. I appreciate Miss X was also dealing with Mr Y when he was alive and that his passing away later would have affected her ability to pursue matters. Overall, however, I have not seen good reason for the length of time (well over two years) between Miss X knowing she was dissatisfied and complaining to us. I consider Miss X could reasonably have complained to us within, or just over, 12 months of March 2017. So I shall not pursue this late complaint.
12. Responding to a draft of this decision, Miss X gave several reasons for the delay complaining to us.
• Miss X said she spent time ‘going back and forth’ with Home Z and it then took her time to find and deal with an advocate because she found it difficult to complain herself. I do note this. However, even allowing for the time taken complaining to Home Z, Miss X waited a further 15 months after Home Z’s final response before complaining to us, as paragraph 11 said.
• Miss X states that, while Home Z’s final reply told her she could contact the Ombudsman, she thought that was just Home Z indicating it did not care what she did with the complaint. Miss X states she did not know the process and did not know she could come straight to us. I do not find this persuasive. Home Z’s final response clearly explained if Miss X was dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman and included our telephone number. I consider that was clear enough for Miss X reasonably to understand she could complain to us next.
• Miss X states that, after receiving Home X’s final reply, she contacted other organisations about her concerns and awaited their replies, which she did not receive. I do not consider this was a good enough reason to delay complaining to us for more than a further year. Home Z’s response had made clear the Ombudsman was the next step for her complaint. I see no evidence Miss X was given any reason to believe she had to do anything else before complaining to us.
13. For these reasons, Miss X’s response to my draft decision do not persuade me there are good reasons to investigate this complaint now.
14. Miss X also told us she was dissatisfied with the Council moving Mr Y to another care home when he left hospital in May 2017. My understanding is that Miss X was not unhappy with the new home as such but considered the fact of moving someone in Mr Y’s condition inappropriate. I have not seen any evidence of a complaint to the Council about this point. Anyway, again Miss X did not complain to us for over two years. I have not seen good reason for the delay. So I shall not pursue this late part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman