Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled matters relating to Mr X’s son’s care and related fees. There is either not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, or we could achieve nothing meaningful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council repeatedly failed to safeguard his son, Mr Z, excluded him from decisions about his care, including where he now lives, misused public funds and violated the law and his human rights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is unhappy with the placement Mr Z moved into in 2023 and the decisions taken about this at the time.
6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Mr Z’s move to the placement. Events took place over three years ago and we could achieve very little that was meaningful by investigating now. This is supported by the fact Mr Z, who still lives in the placement, has expressed his satisfaction with the arrangements and there is no indication he wants to move.
7. We will also not look at other decision making prior to the 12 months Mr X came to us. Again, this is because there is little we could achieve at this stage.
8. Most decisions in the period I am considering related to care fees. However, there was also a meeting in June 2025 which involved Mr X and other family members which covered Mr Z’s care and support arrangements. A meeting to determine whether Mr Z should be subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards also took place which Mr X did not attend. Mr X complained Mr Z did not have a British sign language interpreter present. The Council apologised and said it would ensure one was present at future meetings. Further investigation would achieve nothing further.
9. Regarding Mr Z’s fees, the Council changed Mr Z’s placement from residential to supported living and applied this retrospectively from August 2023. This resulted in a credit note of around £13,000 for the period from August 2023 to July 2025. The revised fees for that period for which the Council then invoiced Mr X was around £3,400. The Council’s calculations considered the type of placement, Mr Z’s benefits and his outgoings. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is either not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation or we could achieve nothing meaningful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman