Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

3. Mr E complains the ICB told him he could not appeal its decision that his mother was not eligible for a full continuing healthcare (CHC)assessment on 6 November 2019. CHC is a package of care for adults that is fully funded by the NHS. To get this funding a person needs to be assessed and meet specific levels of need.

4. Mr E explains the entire process has been upsetting and frustrating. Not being able to challenge the ICB’s decision has affected his mother’s estate.

5. Mr E would like the ICB to reconsider its decision.

7. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to. We have discussed this with Mr E to understand the reasons why he could not come to us sooner. We have also considered the time the ICB took to respond to Mr E’s complaint.

8. On 30 January 2018 the ICB told Mr E his mother was not eligible for CHC funding between 5 December 2008 and 30 October 2010. We think this is when Mr E knew he had a reason to complain.

9. Mr E did not complain about the decision until 25 October 2018. This was nine months later.

10. On 27 November the ICB replied to Mr E’s complaint upholding its decision and told Mr E he could come to us if he was unhappy with the decision.

11. On 22 March 2019, five months later, Mr E wrote to the ICB. He continued to challenge it’s decision.

12. On 26 March the ICB emailed Mr E and explained its last letter (27 November 2018) was its final decision and his next course of action would be to contact us.

13. On the same day Mr E explained he still held the ICB responsible. He asked the ICB to reconsider its position. On 31 July the ICB wrote to Mr E and a meeting was arranged for 5 August.

14. On 5 August Mr E met with the ICB. This was the end of the ICB’s complaint handling.

15. Mr E came to us on 24 March 2023. Mr E needed to come to us by 30 January 2019 (a year after he knew there was a problem) for his complaint to be in time.

16. We have seen the ICB did not delay this complaint, it replied to him in a reasonable time after each contact.

17. We have considered Mr E’s explanation for the delay. He explained he did not know he needed to come to us within 12 months. He thought he had 12 months from the end of the ICB’s complaint process. Mr E explained he felt the ICB had not answered his questions and he wanted to complete the process before coming to us.

18. We understand this but it is not reason enough for us to put our time limit to one side. Information about our service is readily available. The ICB told Mr E to complain to us if he was unhappy with its decision. Mr E did not contact us until three years and seven months after his meeting with the ICB.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board (the ICB). We understand the events were frustrating for Mr E as he felt he had not been able to challenge the ICB’s decision. We are sorry to hear of his experience.

2. We cannot investigate the complaint because it was brought to us outside of our time limit. We have explained this decision below.