Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his late mother, Mrs Y’s, financial assessment linked to her care needs. We have found fault because the Council took too long to complete the assessment. This would have caused Mr X distress. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and written off a significant amount of Mrs Y’s fees due to the delayed assessment. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have already remedied any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council completed its financial assessment (FA) of his late mother, Mrs Y’s, assets. Specifically, he complains:
• of delays in the FA process which resulted in the Council taking five years to complete an FA originally started in 2018;
• that the Council has said payments of £20,000 and £30,000 made by Mrs Y to Mr X in 2018 will be considered as deprivation of assets (DoA) when they were legitimate payments; and
• the start date for the FA was incorrect.
2. Mr X says this has caused him and the family considerable frustration and distress and affected his wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person complaining. I have used the term fault to describe this. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins when Mr X first contacted the Council about the FA in May 2018. Mr X came to us within 12 months of the FA being finalised so I am satisfied it is appropriate to include this period in my investigation.
7. My investigation will end at the beginning of October 2024. This is after Mr X had brought his complaint to us but includes the period when the Council decided to write off charges for Mrs Y’s care. I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate for me to include this in my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for permanent residential care

10. The Care Act 2014 (sections 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG).
11. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking an FA to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.
12. The financial limit, known as the ‘upper capital limit’, exists for the purposes of the FA. This sets out at what point a person can get council support to meet their eligible needs. People who have over the upper capital limit must pay the full cost of their residential care home fees. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit (£23,250), they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees. Where a person’s resources are below the lower capital limit (£14,250) they will not need to contribute to the cost of their care and support from their capital.
13. There is no time limit specified for the FA to be carried out, but it should be done so in a timely manner.

Deprivation of assets

14. Section 8.27 of the CSSG says that people with care and support needs are free to spend their income and assets as they see fit, including making gifts to friends and family. This is important for promoting their wellbeing and enabling them to live fulfilling and independent lives. However, it is also important that people pay their fair contribution towards their care and support costs.
15. Annex E of the CSSG says that DoA is where a person has intentionally deprived or decreased their overall assets in order to reduce the amount they are charged towards their care.
16. It says this means that they must have known that they needed care and support and have reduced their assets in order to reduce the contribution they are asked to make towards the cost of that care and support.
17. It also states that when undertaking or reviewing a financial assessment a local authority may identify circumstances that suggest that a person may have deliberately deprived themselves of assets in order to reduce the level of the contribution towards the cost of their care.

What happened

18. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
19. Prior to Mrs Y’s death and due to her health needs, Mr X was representing her in dealing with matters with the Council and also in the complaint to the Ombudsman.
20. Mrs Y had moved into a care home very early in 2018. At this time, she was funding the care herself.
21. At the end of May 2018, Mr X contacted the Council to request an FA be completed for Mrs Y. He said her funds had almost reduced to the upper capital limit of £23,250.
22. At the beginning of July 2018, the Council’s social work team also requested an FA be carried out. Mr X chased this again at the end of the month.
23. The Council and Mr X communicated between October and December 2018. In mid-December, the Council advised Mr X that it needed more information on Mrs Y’s finances and assets.
24. After a chase by the Council late in January 2019, Mr X sent information about Mrs Y’s finances. This included details of £20,000 Mrs Y had loaned from Mr X over a period of time in the 1990s. It also detailed an investment of £30,000 in Mr X’s name to help with long term care costs. Both amounts were paid to Mr X by Mrs Y in February 2018.
25. In mid-February 2019, the Council asked Mr X for more information on both amounts.
26. At the beginning of April 2019, Mr X responded to provide further details.
27. In mid-April 2022, the Council telephoned Mr X to ask him more information about Mrs Y’s finances and circumstances. It followed this up with an email to confirm. The Council chased Mr X for a response in June and July 2022. It advised Mr X that if there was no response then Mrs Y would need to pay the full costs of care herself.
28. Mr X replied at the beginning of August 2022. He said the £30,000 had been inheritance from his father who had died many years earlier and that Mrs Y had been self-funding at the care home until the end of May 2018. Mr X said he thought the Council had completed the FA in 2019.
29. In mid-August, the Council told Mr X the FA had not been concluded in 2019, so it was doing this now. The Council questioned why loans from many years ago had been repaid in 2018 and whether Mrs Y had capacity at the time to have made the decision. Mr X later said it had been his mother’s choice to repay the debt in 2018. He said he was unhappy with the gap in action by the Council.
30. In mid-October 2022, the Council asked Mr X for further information about Mrs Y’s finances.
31. Early in January 2023, the Council chased Mr X for a response and again said that if there was no response, Mrs Y would need to pay the full costs of care herself.
32. Early in February 2023 and after an email from Mr X asking for more time to gather information, the Council said it was satisfied the £20,000 loan would be taken as notional capital. This meant it considered this was money Mrs Y still had.
33. Mr X sent some of the required information about Mrs Y’s finances in February 2023.
34. After further contact between Mr X and the Council in the coming months, the Council completed the FA in August 2023. It sent a letter to explain what it had assessed Mrs Y’s weekly contribution should be from February 2018 to April 2023. The Council again asked why loans made had not been repaid when his father had died. It confirmed that at that time it was including the loan amount on Mrs Y’s FA.
35. Later in August, the Council sent Mrs Y an invoice to recover charges from February 2018 to 12 August 2023 when the FA had been completed. The Council viewed that Mrs Y had not paid the full contribution she should have done and requested over £129,000 to be paid back to it.
36. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2023. It responded at the end of December 2023. In its response, amongst other issues discussed, the Council:
• apologised for the delays it had caused during the FA process;
• confirmed it had a new procedure in place to identify when Council funding was in place for a care home placement but the individual’s FA had not been completed;
• apologised the FA start date had been logged as February 2018 rather than June 2018;
• confirmed it still considered the £20,000 loan repayment as DoA;
• confirmed it also considered the £30,000 would have been available to Mrs Y if the assessment had a start date of June 2018 and she would therefore have been over the upper capital threshold at the time; and
• signposted him to the Ombudsman.
37. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
38. After further communication between the Council and Mr X, the Council sent him a letter at the beginning of October 2024. The letter said:
• the Council was writing off nearly £126,000 related to August’s invoice for £129,000;
• due to the write off, the Council expected Mrs Y would have an amount in capital and wanted to complete an up-to-date FA;
• it gave Mr X a deadline of 31 October 2024 to provide the documents by, and
• that if the documents were not provided then it would assume Mrs Y could afford to pay the full costs of her care and Council funding would be withdrawn.
39. The Council confirmed that as of late January 2025, Mr X had not provided any recent documents as requested.
40. Mr X has since advised his mother died early in 2025.

Analysis

Background information

41. Where someone has died, we will not normally seek a remedy for injustice caused to that person in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of that fault. This is because the person cannot benefit from such a payment.
42. However, if we consider the person who has complained to us has been adversely affected by the impact of any fault related to their relative, we may make a recommendation to remedy their own distress.

Delays in the financial assessment process

43. Mr X complains of delays in the FA process and says this caused significant distress and frustration.
44. The Council’s response to my enquiries mirrored its December 2023 complaint response. It confirmed to me that there was a gap in it taking any action from April 2019 to April 2022. It also said there were some other delays in Mr X supplying necessary information before and after this period.
45. The Council explained its rationale for the £126,000 write off. It said it thought it was reasonable for it to write off from the beginning of Mrs Y’s time at the care home until April 2022 (when it had began to take action again). The Council said it also felt it reasonable that any contributions would be payable by Mrs Y after this time as delays from that point were mostly due to Mr X.
46. There are no set timescales for completing an FA but this should be done in a timely manner. I am satisfied, that including some minor initial delay in beginning the process, the Council left things to drift. This is fault. However, I consider any injustice to Mr X has been remedied by the apology already offered in the Council’s complaint response and the completion of Mrs Y’s FA in August 2023.
47. I consider the injustice to Mrs Y was limited during this time as she remained a care home resident and was receiving relevant services. I am satisfied any injustice caused by the delay to Mrs Y had already been remedied when the Council wrote off £126,000 in October 2024, which was before her death. This is significantly more than any remedy the Ombudsman is likely to have recommended in the circumstances of this complaint and I therefore make no further recommendations related to this.
48. The Council confirmed in its complaint response to Mr X that it had set up new systems to identify FAs that were outstanding when the Council was contributing to someone’s care costs. Given this, I do not intend to make any further recommendation.

Incorrect start date for the assessment

49. Mr X complained the Council used the wrong start date for the FA and that this should be June, not February of 2018.
50. In its complaint response to him, the Council apologised for this error.
51. In response to my enquiries the Council said its complaint response had agreed the date should be June 2018, but its computer systems had not been updated to reflect this which is why the Council had begun its write off period from February instead of June 2018.
52. The Council confirmed nothing was owed for the period concerned due to the write off and that if the date was then changed this could negatively affect Mrs Y’s finances.
53. Recording the incorrect date for the start of the FA was fault. However, I am satisfied that any injustice caused to Mr X or Mrs Y was remedied by the Council’s apology in the original complaint response. I am also satisfied there has been no disadvantage to Mrs Y’s finances by the write off period being started in February 2018. I therefore do not consider there was any further fault causing an injustice to Mr X or Mrs Y and make no further recommendation related to this.

Deprivation of assets

54. Mr X complained he had suffered an injustice because the Council said payments of £20,000 and £30,000 made by Mrs Y to him early in 2018 would be considered as DoA. Mr X says they were legitimate payments.
55. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained its rationale to me for considering the payments to be DoA. Amongst other things, it considered that when the payments were made Mrs Y was aware of the need to pay for ongoing care and was already a resident in the care home.
56. I am satisfied the Council, in line with Annex E of the CSSG, has demonstrated that it considered the circumstances presented to it regarding the DoA before making its decision. This was a decision for the Council to make and I find no fault in its actions here.
57. Also in response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it does not intend to recover the amount from Mr X. It said that any charges which would have included the £50,000 it considered as DoA had already been written off. I do not intend to make any recommendations related to this.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman