Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to consider a complaint about data protection than the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of his mother, who died in March 2019, that the Council:
• failed to provide enough information about the costs she would need to pay to fund her care; and
• failed to give information to his mother’s care home about a previous safeguarding investigation; and
• gave information about his mother’s death and her funeral to a former neighbour without permission.
2. Mr Y says he has received a bill for £11,000. He also says the former neighbour was able to make unsupervised visits to his mother, before attending the funeral without invitation. Mr Y says the issues caused distress at a time when he was caring for an unwell relative.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Mr Y and the Council have provided spoken to Mr Y. Mr Y now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. Mr Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr Y’s mother suffered from a broken leg following a fall and was hospitalised. Mr Y says her discharge care plan in October 2018 said his mother needed a care placement with qualified nursing care. She was therefore unable to return to her previous care placement.
8. After deciding on a new care placement, Mr Y agreed to pay a third-party top-up fee of approximately £300 per week towards the cost of his mother’s care.
9. After his mother’s discharge in November 2018, Mr Y says he began to receive bills, on her behalf, for approximately £600, in December 2018. This was in addition to the top-up fees. Mr Y says he has disputed any agreement to pay the charges since this time.
10. The Council made a further assessment of Mr Y’s mother’s care needs in January 2019. Mr Y says it was during this assessment he became aware his mother was not receiving qualified nursing care as specified in hospital discharge care plan.
11. In February 2019, Mr Y reported the loss of his mother’s wedding ring to the care provider. During discussions with care staff, Mr Y became aware a former neighbour had been visiting his mother without supervision. Mr Y says the neighbour had previously been accused of stealing money from his mother and had been banned from unsupervised visits to her following a safeguarding investigation in 2017. Mr Y says the Council had failed to tell the care provider about this. Mr Y believes the former neighbour stole his mother’s wedding ring, having been given the opportunity to visit his mother without supervision.
12. Mr Y’s mother died in March 2019. He believes the Council had told the former neighbour about his mother’s death and gave details of the private funeral. Mr Y says this caused him and his family distress during the funeral.
13. Mr Y became the executor to his mother’s estate. He consequently was sent a bill for the costs of Mrs Y’s care, of approximately £600 per month. This amounted to costs of approximately £11,000.
14. Mr Y complained to the Council in August 2019. The Council responded to explain the charges in August 2019. Both parties corresponded about the complaint until February 2020, when the Council referred Mr Y to the Ombudsman. Following a second referral by the Council to the Ombudsman, Mr Y brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2020.

Analysis

15. Mr Y became aware of the additional invoices for costs of his mother’s care and queried this with the Council in December 2018. In raising these costs with the Council in December 2018, Mr Y has shown he was aware of the disputed costs more than 12 months ago. His complaint to the Ombudsman has therefore been made late.
16. Mr Y was also aware of his complaint, that the Council had not passed on safeguarding information about a former neighbour to the new care provider, in February 2019.
17. In December 2018, Mr Y was actively trying to support his mother. He was also supporting a relative who was unwell. Following his mother’s death in March 2019, he then became her executor, acting to administer her estate.
18. While Mr Y has had a challenging and busy family life since becoming aware of his complaint, it still would have been reasonable to expect Mr Y to have brought his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.
19. Mr Y has said he did not come to the Ombudsman sooner because the Council was still investigating. However, Mr Y was made aware and referred to the Ombudsman in an email from the Council in February 2020. Consequently, I would have considered it reasonable for Mr Y to have approached the Ombudsman in February, which would have made only some of his complaint late rather than all. Mr Y did not approach the Ombudsman until he was referred a second time, in August 2020. As a result, there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate Mr Y’s complaint now.
20. Mr Y has also complained the Council told the former neighbour his mother had died and gave details of the funeral. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deal with complaints about data protection. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to complain to the ICO about this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate now. Also, the ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman