Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision his mother Mrs Y’s 2021 payments to him and his sister amounted to a deprivation of assets to fund Mrs Y’s care fees, or its delay in dealing with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process or the decision itself to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y has been in residential care homes since 2018 and has dementia which has worsened in recent years. Mr X is her son. He complains the Council:
1. has incorrectly decided two £35,000 payments from Mrs Y to Mr X and his sister Mrs Z was an intentional deprivation of Mrs Y’s her assets which otherwise would have been available to pay her care fees;
2. delayed in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says the Council’s decision means Mrs Y has built up care fee debt of tens of thousands of pounds and she will not receive support with her fees until the £70,000 notional capital care spending has been reached. He says the situation has taken a great toll on her family. Mr X considers the Council not accepting Mrs Y could give financial help to her family during the COVID-19 situation punishes her. He says he has spent time and been caused trouble by having to pursue the matter.
3. Mr X wants the Council to review what he considers is its incorrect deprivation of assets decision and reach a new fair one. As part of the review, he wants the Council to take into account the circumstances in which Mrs Y made the payments to him and his sister, in relation to the extraordinary COVID-19 situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says Mrs Y went into a care home in 2018, which was two years before selling her house in February 2020. She decided to make two payments of £35,000 each to Mr X and Mrs Z in March 2020. During their decision-making process on the deprivation of assets issue, officers had this information. Given that situation, Mrs Y had an expectation she would have a continuing need for that care provision, and of funding for it, in 2020 when she made the payments and into the future.
8. Mr X says Mrs Y’s intention when she made the payments was to support her family members dealing with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The information shows officers considered Mr X’s argument regarding the COVID‑19 situation as being the reason for the payments. They noted the dates of the payments and the first lockdown which would have significantly affected people’s employment and earnings. The first national lockdown happened on 23 March 2020 and Mr X says Mrs Y made the payments in late March. Officers noted the full impact of the pandemic was unknown at the time of the payments. They also referred to the ‘furlough’ scheme introduced on 20 March 2022 by national government to financially support people, the terms of which differed depending on someone’s personal and work circumstances. Officers were not persuaded they had grounds to alter their decision that the £35,000 payments from Mrs Y to Mr X and Mrs Z amounted to a deprivation of her assets. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process or the deprivation decision here to warrant investigation.
9. We can only go behind a council’s decision if there is fault in the decision-making process it has followed and but for that fault a different outcome would have been reached. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. The Council accepts it failed to process and reply to Mr X’s complaint correctly. It apologised to Mr X for its errors and the resulting delay. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process or the resulting deprivation of assets decision to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling processes where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman