Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment in respect of care costs. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way that the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr N, says that the Council:
• Has failed to consider the law and guidance in deciding that his parents had deprived themselves of their property by transferring it to their sons;
• Has failed to fully consider the reasons as to why the property was transferred during the appeal process; and
• Has wrongly decided that his parents could have reasonably foreseen a need to contribute to care costs at the time the property was transferred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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: it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the evidence provided by the complainant and the Council. I sent Mr N a draft decision for comment and considered his comments before I made my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr N’s parents live in residential care homes.
6. Mr N complains that the Council has wrongly included the value of his parents’ property, which was transferred to their sons a number of years prior to their move to residential care, when assessing financial support towards care costs for his parents. This has resulted in Mr N’s father being liable in full for his care costs, and his mother being liable for a percentage of her care costs.
7. The Council considered Mr N’s application for funding assistance for his father’s care following his father’s move to a residential care home in 2019. The Council explained in its decision letter that as the transfer of property took place after Mr N’s father had been in receipt of a non-residential care package, the transfer would be deemed a deprivation of assets resulting in the value of the property being included in the financial assessment, as per the Care Act 2014. This meant that Mr N’s father was not eligible for funding assistance for his residential care as the value of this capital asset brought him over the funding capital limit of £23,250.
8. The complainant appealed against the Council’s financial assessment.
9. The Council considered Mr N’s appeal and upheld its original decision stating Mr N’s parents were not eligible for funding assistance. The Council says it considered the appeal letter provided by Mr N in arriving at this decision.
10. The complainant complained against the appeal panel’s decision.
11. The Council responded to Mr N’s complaint in November 2019 upholding the appeal panel’s decision. The Council considered and responded to the information provided by Mr N in his complaint, as well as having reviewed all available information contained in its records and file notes. The Council says that as Mr N’s father was in receipt of non-residential care costs at the time of the property transfer, potential future care costs were foreseeable. The Council also says Mr N’s mother was experiencing health problems prior to the transfer.
12. Mr N has complained against the Council’s response saying the Council had not considered the reasons for the transfer of property that he had provided. He has also complained that the Council has failed to consider that his mother was his father’s primary carer at the time the property was transferred and was in good health, meaning care costs for his mother were not foreseeable.
13. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint we need to consider the likelihood of finding fault. I understand that Mr N is unhappy with the deprivation of assets decision made by the Council. However, the Council’s response makes it clear that it has considered all of his evidence but did not find his reasons for the transfer and his assessment of his mother’s health at the time of the transfer, to be convincing. It has explained the reasons for its decision in line with the relevant law and guidance.
14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without evidence of fault in how a Council reached a decision. While Mr N disputes the Councils decision, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision. An investigation is, therefore, not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint because I am unlikely to find fault in the way the Council made its decision .

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman