Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a failure to tell a woman’s family when she died. Services provided coherent explanations for why they did not contact anyone. It is unlikely that an investigation would be able to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Hertfordshire County Council (the Council) was responsible for meeting Miss Z’s needs for care and support under the Care Act 2014 (the Care Act). The Council has an agreement with Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Under this agreement the Trust arranges Care Act support for the Council but the Council retains responsibility for it. Because of this, we have investigated the Council, including for the actions which a care home undertook on its behalf.
2. Mr X complains Eltisley Manor Care Home (the Care Home) and the Council:
1. Failed to notify his aunt’s, Miss Z’s, next of kin that she had died;
2. Arranged a funeral for Miss Z at excessive expense, without contacting her next of kin;
3. Failed to provide him with a copy of a cremation request form; and
4. Failed to fully answer his complaint.
3. Mr X said, because of the lack of contact, Miss Z’s family could not attend her funeral. And Mr X said the organisations’ failures to answer his questions mean the family have not been able to move on and start to grieve.
4. In bringing his complaint to the Ombudsmen Mr X said he would like:

• Answers to his outstanding questions and explanations for the organisations’ actions;
• An apology;
• A financial payment to reflect the “Difference between costs of funeral”; and
• Procedural changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mr X’s written complaint along with the supporting information he provided. I considered LGSCO’s Assessment Code and government good practice guidance on public health funerals.
8. I spoke to Mr X about his views on my draft decision and considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss Z moved into a care home in May 2020. Miss Z later moved to the Care Home and remained there until her death in July 2023.
10. In March 2025 one of Miss Z’s sisters learned of Miss Z’s death. Mr X began writing to the Care Home to ask questions about Miss Z’s death and why no one had contacted the family after she died. Mr X complained to the Trust and it shared the complaint with the Care Home.
11. The Care Home told Mr X that Miss Z “had consistently requested that no family are contacted”. It also said it had never been given any details of anyone in Miss Z’s family. The Trust said in October 2022 it had made efforts to find out about Miss Z’s next of kin but was unsuccessful. It said that when Miss Z died the only details it had were for her brother who Miss Z had asked them not to contact.

Analysis

Complaint (a) – That the organisations failed to notify Miss Z’s next of kin that she had died

12. Miss Z had lived in a care home for about three years. She had also been under the care of an integrated mental health and social care service throughout that time. For the entire time Miss Z was in the care home she did not have any contact with any member of her family. Mr X and others in the family did not know where she lived. The Care Home and the integrated service did not have details of any member of her family other than a brother who she explicitly instructed them not to contact.
13. It seems that professionals asked questions about Miss Z’s next of kin in October 2022 but drew a blank. At one point Miss Z told her social worker she had a sister but did not suggest she wanted to be in contact with her. After Miss Z was diagnosed with a terminal illness various professionals had separate conversations with her about preparations for the end of her life. These included conversations about what sort of funeral she would like. Miss Z did not ask for any support in contacting her family at that time and did not ask anyone to ensure her family attended her funeral. Throughout this time professionals appear to have been satisfied that Miss Z had the mental capacity to make various decisions about her care and finances.
14. Guidance about public health funerals says:

“There is no legal requirement to locate next of kin, but it is good practice to try to do so in order to inform the bereaved that their relative has passed away, and to provide families with the option of organising the funeral themselves should they wish to.

The next of kin can also play an important role in advising authorities of the deceased’s personal wishes, including any requirements they had in relation to their religion or beliefs, which can help to determine whether a burial or cremation is more appropriate.”

15. In the context of the discussions that had taken place when it was known Miss Z was dying, it is unlikely an investigation would be critical of either organisation for not attempting to identify and contact Miss Z’s next of kin after she died. It seems they had given Miss Z an opportunity to tell them about her family and whether she wanted them involved when she was alive. And they were satisfied that she had made a conscious, capacious decision not to involve them. Efforts to contact family members, who had not been in touch with Miss Z for over three years, would have risked dismissing and overriding Miss Z’s stated wishes. Overall, it is unlikely we would find fault here.

Complaint (b) – That the Care Home arranged a funeral for Miss Z at excessive expense, without contacting her next of kin

16. The complaints correspondence show that staff from the Care Home arranged Miss Z’s funeral with a company they had discussed using with Miss Z while she was alive. The Care Home forwarded the invoice to a bank it understood Miss Z had held an account at. It did so for the bank to settle the invoice from Miss Z’s accounts.
17. Complaints can be made ‘on behalf of’ someone by a wide range of people or organisations, but only with that person’s consent. Where someone is unable to complain in their own right the Ombudsmen must consider whether their representative can represent their best interests.
18. Mr X was Miss Z’s nephew. However, a close family relationship does not give an automatic right to access a person’s confidential information, or to act on their behalf.
19. On balance, it seems more likely that Miss Z did not want her family involved in her life and care and had made a conscious, capacious decision about this. A close family relationship does not give an automatic right to access a person’s confidential information, or to act on their behalf. As such, Mr X’s familial connection as a nephew to Miss Z is not enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate that he is a suitable person to make a complaint on behalf of Miss Z in relation to a financial injustice she may have suffered in relation to the cost of her funeral.
20. Any direct injustice to Mr X relating to this issue would depend on his entitlement to part of Miss Z’s estate. At present, I have not seen evidence of any such entitlement. Further, I have not seen evidence to suggest that Mr X would have been better placed to know Miss Z’s wishes for her funeral than the Care Home. Care Home staff had talked to Miss Z about it in advance. They are also likely to have known her likes and dislikes from supporting her over a prolonged period. Because of this, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be able to find evidence of an unremedied injustice related to this issue.

Complaint (c) – That the Care Home failed to provide him with a copy of a cremation request form

21. The Care Home has explicitly argued that Mr X has no legal right to this document and that he would need to obtain a court order for it. In this context the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) would be best placed to determine whether the Care Home has interpreted relevant legislation and guidance appropriately.

Complaint (d) – That the organisations failed to fully answer his complaint.

22. The Care Home’s and the Trust’s responses provide evidence that the organisations read through contemporaneous records and spoke to relevant staff to establish details of what had happened. The responses included attempts to explain what staff knew of Miss Z’s family and her wishes before she died. I do not consider it is likely an investigation would find fault in the organisations’ complaint handling.

Back to top

Decision

23. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find evidence of fault causing an unremedied injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman