Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider gifts he made as a deprivation of assets when assessing his contributions to care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that during a financial assessment the Council determined that gifts he had given to family members were ‘deprivation of capital’ and included their value when calculating his ability to pay for care. Mr Y disputes this decision, saying the gifts were made for legitimate reasons and should not have been included in the financial assessment.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y was receiving care in his home which he self-funded. He decided to make gifts to his family because he wished to see his family benefit from his money during his lifetime. Mr Y’s circumstances later changed when his care needs increased, and he moved into residential care. During a financial assessment the Council decided the gifts amounted to a deprivation of capital. Mr Y says the gifts should not be treated as a deprivation of capital because he believed he had sufficient funds to meet his care costs when the gifts were made.
6. Councils may consider whether a person has deliberately deprived themselves of capital to reduce the charges they must pay. When assessing a disposal of capital, a council considers things such as the timing of the disposal, the size and purpose of the gift, their health and expected care needs at the time, and whether they could reasonably have expected to need to contribute towards the cost of their care and support. After considering these things, the Council may decide to treat the person as still owning the asset.
7. When the Council assessed Mr Y’s contribution towards the cost of his care, it considered evidence of his health and care needs over more than a decade. It decided that Mr Y would have been aware that his needs were changing and that his care costs could increase. There is no evidence that Mr Y lacked the mental capacity to understand his circumstances at the time.
8. The Council considered the relevant evidence about the reasons for the gifts and whether Mr Y could reasonably have expected to need care and support and contribute towards its cost. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman