Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision on a deprivation of assets for adult social care funding. It is unlikely we would find fault or add to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has wrongly decided her mother, Ms C, deprived herself of an asset when she put her house into a trust. Ms B says the reason they put the house into trust was to make probate easier, the Council says the same could have been achieved with a will. The Council’s decision affects the amount Ms C must pay towards her adult social care fees for a residential care home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Ms B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I considered the Care Act 2014 and associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The ‘Care and support statutory guidance’ says when a council needs to decide if someone has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset it should consider:

• whether avoiding the care and support charge was a significant motivation in the timing of the disposal of the asset; at the point the capital was disposed of could the person have a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support?
• did the person have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs?

7. The Council’s records show it considered these issues, including the reasons put forward by the family about the motivation for the disposal, and decided Ms C had deliberately deprived herself of an asset.
8. Ms B disagrees with the Council’s decision, but there is no fault in the way the Council made its decision. The Council considered the reasons the family put forward, relevant evidence from its records and medical records. The Council has properly explained its decision on deprivation in a letter to Ms B, and in its response to Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault or add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman