Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaints about poor quality of care in a care home and lack of response to an appeal of his aunt’s financial assessment. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining to us. We will also not investigate his complaint the Council delayed pursuing his aunt for unpaid care charges, because any fault in this respect did not cause an injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to pursue the debt in 2025. The Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with complaints about access to information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about:
• the quality of his aunt’s (Mrs Y’s) care in a residential home in 2023;
• the Council’s lack of response when he raised concerns at the time;
• the Council’s failure to respond to an appeal of Mrs Y’s financial assessment in 2023;
• its decision to pursue a debt in 2025 after two years’ delay, without placing a hold on recovery action while it considered the dispute; and
• how the Council handled a Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Mr X said this caused significant distress to him and his aunt, and has placed
   Mrs Y’s ongoing care and wellbeing at risk. He said it also caused him frustration and inconvenience.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to write off the debt it considers Mrs Y owes, apologise, pay a financial remedy and properly investigate the concerns about the quality of Mrs Y’s care in 2023.

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 or care provider 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter unless there is a good reason. Mr X was aware in 2023 of the issues he raises relating to quality of care. Mrs Y moved out of the relevant care home in mid-2023.
10. Mr X says he complained verbally to the Council at the time, and that its alleged failure to act on the concerns in 2023 should not prevent the matters being considered now. However, people can bring complaints to us when they do not receive a response from the Council within a reasonable timeframe. Any inaction by the Council did not prevent Mr X pursuing the matter at the time. It would have been reasonable for him to chase the Council and contact us. There is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing this part of the complaint to us, and we will not investigate this late complaint now.
11. It would also have been reasonable for Mr X to escalate a complaint in 2023 about the Council’s lack of response to an appeal of Mrs Y’s financial assessment and a request for a breakdown of her charges. We will not investigate a complaint about this now.
12. Mr X’s complaint also concerns delay by the Council in pursuing Mrs Y for her debt for the care charges accrued in 2023. The Council did not contact Mrs Y or her family between August 2023 and June 2025. Mr X says he believed the charges had been waived in 2023 when Mrs Y moved to a different local authority’s area (Council B). He says a Council officer told him verbally that “financial arrangements were resolved” between it and Council B. The Council says this would have related to arrangements for Mrs Y’s ongoing care charges in Council B’s area, and nothing had been issued in writing to make the family believe the invoice did not remain payable.
13. On balance, Mr X was aware the charges remained payable in 2023. It would have been reasonable for him to contact the Council for clarity upon not receiving subsequent chasers for payment or any written confirmation charges had been waived.
14. Any fault we could find if we investigated these matters, in any event, did not cause injustice. Any delay in the Council chasing payment, or any fault in the Council officer’s communication, did not cause a detriment to Mrs Y. This is because but for any fault in these respects, Mrs Y would still have been considered liable for the fees.
15. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to pursue payment of the debt in 2025. The Council has a responsibility to pursue payment for debts where the person had the funds to pay for their care. Mr X raises concerns that Mrs Y’s financial circumstances have now changed to the extent that she would no longer be assessed as having to pay towards her care. However, this debt accrued in 2023 when Mrs Y had sufficient capital to pay for her care. Given this, the debt remains rightly owed to the Council. It is for Council B to take this into account when assessing Mrs Y’s current financial circumstances and deciding on what date her finances dropped below the relevant thresholds.
16. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that considers complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information under data protection legislation. Mr X has contacted the ICO, and there is not a reason for us to consider a complaint about Mr X’s request for information as well.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining to us about matters he was aware of in 2023;
• any fault in the way of delay or poor communication did not cause an injustice;
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to pursue the debt in 2025; and
• the Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with complaints about access to information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman