Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a property disregard because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council have not disregarded his father, Mr Y’s house in respect of his care home fees. Mr X said the property is his home and should therefore be disregarded. Mr X said the Council’s decision has had a significant impact on his mental health. He would like the Council to disregard his father’s house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Act 2014 (section 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. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014.
7. The Council carried out a financial assessment to assess how much Mr Y should pay towards his adult social care in June 2025, shortly before he moved into permanent residential care.
8. Mr X argued that Mr Y’s share in a property should not be considered in the financial assessment, because it had been Mr X’s main home since November 2024.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal for a mandatory property disregard in September 2025. The Council decided Mr X had not met the criteria for the mandatory disregard because the property was not his main or only home. The Council said records showed Mr X owned another property. It also said Mr X had advised Council staff in June 2025 he was partly living at the property Mr Y owned a share of.
10. The Council offered Mr X the option to take up a deferred payment arrangement (DPA) for paying Mr Y’s care costs. A DPA is a loan that covers the cost of the care fees.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision not to agree a property disregard is correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
12. The Council wrote to Mr X to inform him of the outcome of his appeal. The letter set out how the Council considered the appeal and explained the reasons for its decision. In addition, it offered a DPA as a practical solution that would enable Mr X to continue to live in the property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman