The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s oversight of a micro-care provider. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s oversight of a micro-care provider. He said that resulted in his late uncle, Mr Y, being financially exploited after he was coerced by his Care Provider to change his will. He said the Council did not respond to his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said there was no evidence to substantiate his concerns. It also confirmed that as Mr X had taken legal action against the Care Provider, it would not consider the matter further. It confirmed it had a Quality Assurance Process for dealing with concerns about micro-providers.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because: In Mr X’s complaint to the Council, he said he’d had concerns about how the Care Provider spent Mr Y’s money and invoiced for care for several years. If Mr X had concerns about financial abuse, it was appropriate for him to contact the Council whilst Mr Y was still alive. Mr X did not contact the Council until March 2022 after Mr Y died. He did not complain to the Ombudsman until 2024. Therefore, his substantive complaint about the Care Provider is late. There is no good reason to extend discretion to consider this matter now.
In any event, even if the complaint was not late, we would not investigate, that is because: Although Mr Y believes the Care Provider coerced Mr Y into changing his will, that is not a finding we could make. Mr X is currently challenging Mr Y’s change of will through the legal process. That is the appropriate route for him to address his concerns as only the Court can decide whether Mr Y was unduly influenced to change his will.
The Council has Quality Assurance Processes in place to provide oversight of micro-providers. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our investigation.
Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling is also late. If the Council failed to respond to his concerns in 2022, it was appropriate for him to contact us sooner. Additionally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and the Court is best placed to decide whether Mr Y was unduly influence to change his will.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman