Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in paying her father’s care home fees for nine months. This is because the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed in paying her father’s care home fees for nine months. She also complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint and that the Council has not responded to her freedom of information request.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s father, Mr Z, entered a care home in June 2023. A deferred payment agreement was in place that meant the Council would pay for Mr Z’s care charges until his property was sold.
6. Mrs X said the Council failed to pay the care home for nine months. In response to her complaint, the Council acknowledged there had been delays with dealing with Mr Z’s case but confirmed it had now paid the balance due to the care home.
7. We will not investigate this complaint because the accepted fault did not cause significant injustice. There is no evidence Mr Z was caused any injustice by the delay because he continued to receive care and support from his care home. There is also no evidence there was any threat of eviction.
8. I acknowledge Mrs X’s distress and frustration caused in having to chase the Council for a resolution. However, this is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive matter complained about, we will not investigate a complaint purely about the Council’s complaint handling.
10. Finally, Mrs X says the Council failed to respond to her freedom of information request. This complaint is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office as they can dealt with complaints about how the Council has dealt with its responsibilities under data protection legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman