Summary: There was fault by the Council as it took off selling fees after taking off the mortgage cost when carrying out a financial reassessment. The Council has corrected this error and explained the complainant still had capital above the upper capital limit so was responsible for the full cost of residential care fees. So, the error did not cause financial injustice which needs to be remedied. During the investigation of the complaint, the Council also identified another error which it has corrected, which reduced the amount owed by £411.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs Y, complains for Mr X, her late father. She complains the Council’s financial re-assessment in 2021 used wrong figures and her father should not have had to pay the full cost of residential care fees for a short stay in 2018.
2. Mrs Y also says the Council has not adequately responded to extra questions she has asked.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the financial re-assessment that occurred in 2021. The final section of this statement contains my reason(s) for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers put in by Mrs Y and discussed the complaint with her.
8. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
9. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mrs Y’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman (19 016 681) was decided in December 2020. The Council carried out a reassessment in 2021, of the financial assessment it carried out on her father in February 2019. The 2021 reassessment used the value of the property Mrs Y jointly owned with her father as £90,000. This valuation was given to the Council by Mrs Y.
11. Mrs Y complains the Council took off the selling fees after it had taken off the value of the outstanding mortgage rather than before. This meant the allowance for fees was lower than it should have been.
12. The Council has accepted that it was at fault. It has said that it deducted the selling fees after deducting the mortgage costs and it should have deducted the selling costs first.
13. The Council has now corrected this error. However, it says it does not make a difference to the result of the re-assessment. Mr X was still responsible for the full cost of the residential care fees. The Council has identified that there was another error when calculating the fees, which has reduced the amount owed by Mrs Y.
14. The Care Act 2014 says that when charging for residential care, a person with assets above the upper capital limit (£23,250) is responsible for the full cost of their care in a care home.
15. The Council has explained that in February 2019, after deducting mortgage costs, selling fees and Mrs Y’s share of the house, Mr X had £22,799 plus a bank balance of £4580. This bank balance was taken from Mr X’s bank statement which was given to the Council. So, as he had capital above £23,250 Mr X was responsible for the full costs of his care.
16. There was fault by the Council during the reassessment. The Council accepts that it should have deducted the selling fees first and has said it will ensure officers are aware of this in future. However, this fault did not cause injustice to Mrs Y as it has not changed the decision that Mr X was responsible for the full costs of his care. So, I do not consider a remedy is needed on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council but it did not cause injustice to the complainant.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

18. I have not investigated Mrs Y’s complaints that the Council has not responded to questions she has asked in relation to matters that occurred before December 2020. The Council has said the matters she raised were considered in the previous complaint to the Ombudsman. My view is also that the questions asked all related to the previous investigation or to events prior to 2016, which we have told Mrs Y that we would not investigate as they were late complaints when she made her previous complaint.
19. During the investigation of the complaint, Mrs Y raised further complaints about three debts that had not been included in the 2019 financial assessment. I have not investigated these points as they relate to the 2019 financial assessment which was considered as part of the previous complaint. My investigation relates only to the 2021 reassessment, which was not a full financial assessment but only considered the impact of the change in property valuation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman