Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of capital for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council has wrongly decided his father, Mr D, deprived himself of an asset to avoid paying for care. This is causing stress and upset.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Ombudsman publication ‘Guidance for Practitioners – Deprivation of Capital’.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When the Council assesses someone in its area needs care and support, it must then complete a financial assessment on what, if anything, the person can afford to pay toward their care.
8. On completing a financial assessment, the Council found Mr D gifted money to his family at a time he was receiving care and had a reasonable expectation about paying for care in the future. The Council decided in giving that money away, Mr D had deprived himself of an asset. The Council can then treat Mr D as if he still had that capital, so it is included in his financial assessment.
9. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to review the case and decide whether deprivation of capital has occurred. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if there is any fault in how the Council made its decision.
10. In making its decision the Council has considered relevant factors, relevant guidance, has considered its decision at appeal, and said it will look further at the decision if Mr C provides any further supporting evidence. The Council has fully explained its decision to Mr C.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council has considered the matter in line with relevant guidance, taking account of relevant factors and the reasoning put forward by Mr C. Although Mr C disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman