Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mrs Y’s care charges because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision on her mother’s care charges and its failure to reimburse an overpayment. She is also unhappy with its communications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A council will take into account a person’s assets, including property, when calculating how much they must pay towards their care. If a council decides a person has intentionally deprived themselves of assets, they will still take its value into account. However, a council may also use its discretion to disregard the value of a person’s property, when assessing finances. The council will need to balance this discretion with ensuring a person’s assets are not maintained at public expense.
7. Ms X asked the Council to exercise discretion to disregard her mother, Mrs Y’s property. The Council noted it must avoid unnecessarily maintaining a person’s assets at public expense. And that the discretionary power would usually be used in situations where a person lives in the property, and it would not be reasonable to expect them to vacate the property. It noted a tenant currently rented the property so taking the value of the property into account would not place anyone living in the property at risk, and there was not someone living in the property who relied on it. It also considered the difficult personal circumstances of Mrs Y but found these did not justify the exercise of its discretion.
8. The Council took into account the information provided, decided in line with statutory guidance on discretionary disregards and, gave reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.
9. Ms X paid too much towards care charges in April 2025 and the Council reimbursed this overpayment in July 2025. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
10. It is not proportionate to investigate Ms X’s concerns over the Council’s poor communication and complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman