Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of the value of her father Mr Y’s property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the actions it has taken so far, or evidence of injustice caused to warrant investigation. The Council has not yet instructed an independent valuer to complete the valuation. Once that has been done, if Mrs X and her representatives disagree with the outcome and the way the valuation has been done, they may complain to the Council then the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the daughter of Mr Y, a resident of a care home. Mrs X has Power of Attorney for Mr Y. Mrs X has instructed Mr Z to be her representative.
2. Mr Z complains the Council has:
1. failed to complete a lawful assessment of Mr Y’s finances;
2. applied a mistaken approach to calculating the value of Mr Y’s 50 percent share in a property.
3. Mr Z says the Council’s faults have led to it determining Mr Y’s assets as being greater than the threshold at which he would receive assistance with his care fees. Mr Y has accrued care fee debts which he cannot pay, through no fault of his own.
4. Mr Z wants the Council to:
• assign a nominal or nil value to Mr Y’s share of the property, and contribute to his ongoing care fees accordingly;
• calculate the date at which Mr Y’s funds fell below the £23,250 threshold and backdate their contribution to Mr Y’s fees accordingly;
• if an independent valuation of Mr Y’s property asset is required, the Council should adopt Mr Z’s approach and interpretation when conducting that valuation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr Z;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr Z to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr Y initially funded his own care at the home. In or around January 2019, Mr Z says Mr Y’s family estimated that his funds had fallen below the threshold at which he would be entitled to a Council contribution to his care fees.
8. Mr Z has provided to the Council a market valuation of the property, of which Mr Y owns a half share, as between £650,000 and £675,000. The Council offered Mr Z’s client an independent valuation of that share in September 2019.
9. I note Mr Z considers the Council would be putting itself to unnecessary costs if it employed an independent valuer without agreeing a joint letter of instruction for how the valuation should be done.
10. But it is now for the Council to proceed with the independent valuation. If the Council needs further evidence from Mr Z or his client, it should ask for it. It is for Mr Z and his client to decide whether to comply with any such information request. If they decide not to provide it, delay caused to the valuation process by that decision would not be due to Council fault. If Mr Z wishes to make their representations for the consideration of the valuer, they may do so. It is the role of the valuer to remain independent and base their decision on the evidence before them and the relevant professional guidance.
11. I note there may be some legal dispute about the ownership of the other 50 percent share of the property. It would be for the independent valuer to decide whether a dispute has any bearing on the precise value of Mr Y’s property share, but any dispute about ownership for the other share would not prevent Mr Y’s share from being sold. Mr Y’s share can be sold without reference to any owner of the other half. There is a market for part shares in property as investments, and any valuer the Council instructs must, by law, assume there is a willing buyer when valuing the part share.
12. The Council has given its current view, before any independent valuation, that Mr Y’s 50 percent share in the property has a value of about £330,000. The Council disagrees with Mr Z’s view that Mr Y’s half share in the property would have a nominal or nil value. The Council considers the value to be in excess of the £23,250 threshold below which it may be required to contribute to Mr Y’s care fees.
13. The outcome for Mr Y’s care fees is not dependent upon the Council’s view, but on the outcome of the independent valuation in any event. On the information we have we cannot say the Council’s position is plainly wrong. So there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr Y for the Ombudsman to justify an investigation now, because the key valuation has not been done.
14. When the independent valuation is complete, if Mr Z and his client wish to dispute how it has been done or any decision the Council reaches based on it, they should complain again to the Council. If they remain dissatisfied with the Council’s final response, they may bring a complaint on the matter to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot pre‑empt the outcome of the independent valuation by considering what the outcome might be before it has been done.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr Y to warrant investigation;
• no independent valuation has been done, so there is no outcome for Mrs X and her representatives to dispute at this time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman