Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council is seeking to recover an unpaid debt for care charges from his late father’s estate and in particular from the sale proceeds of the family home which is still occupied by Mr B’s sister, who has disabilities. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr B and his family injustice, so it does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B says he and his siblings are suffering injustice because the Council is seeking to recover an unpaid debt for care charges from his late father’s estate and in particular from the sale proceeds of the family home which is still occupied by Mr B’s sister, who has disabilities. Mr B says this will reduce the value of the estate unreasonably, and his sister will not be able to secure alternative accommodation from her one third share of the estate. He wants the Council to cancel the outstanding charges because the property should be disregarded for social care charging.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered what Mr B said in his complaint and the Council’s response to it. I have also discussed the matter by telephone with Mr B and given him an opportunity to comment on a draft before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B’s father (Mr C) moved to a care home in December 2014, contrary to the views of his wife and daughter who did not want him moved from his own home. Mr B now says he too disagrees with that decision, but it happened too long ago for the Ombudsman to investigate effectively and Mr B could reasonably have complained at the time, both to the Council and then to the Ombudsman, if he was unhappy about it.
5. There was no-one with legal authority to manage Mr C’s affairs, so the Council referred to solicitors. The firm applied to the Court of Protection for Deputyship to allow them to manage Mr C’s affairs. The Council also became appointee to receive Mr C’s pension from the Department for Work and Pensions.
6. Later, Mr B became Deputy in place of the solicitor and also began to receive Mr C’s pension. The solicitor transferred Mr C’s money to Mr B in the sum of £59k.
7. The Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint shows:
• Mr B had shown evidence that Mr C had £51k in savings in December 2014. This meant Mr C was expected to pay for his residential care in full until his savings fell, or would have fallen below the level at which he was expected to pay for his care, in November 2016.
• The Council stopped receiving Mr C’s pension from December 2016 until September 2017, when Mr B assumed the Deputyship and took over managing his affairs.
• The Council has reviewed the charges and is satisfied it has correctly calculated the amount owing is about £39k.
8. Mr B has questioned the detail of the Council’s calculations and it has considered what he says. Although complicated, the Council is satisfied the final figure is correct. I am satisfied it is unlikely the calculations could be so flawed as to make a significant difference to the outstanding debt.
9. It is also clear the calculations are based on Mr C’s income and savings at the relevant times, and do not refer at all to the property he owned. But if the debt for charges is not paid from Mr C’s estate, the Council would be entitled to seek judgement in the county court. I understand it has asked Mr B as the administrator of Mr C’s estate to agree to and instruct those acting for him the sale of the property that the charges debt should be settled out of the sale proceeds to avoid court action. There is no fault in it doing so. Alternatively it would be open to Mr B to settle the debt from other money in the estate.
10. The Council has correctly not included the value of Mr C’s property in its charging decision, but it is entitled to seek repayment of the unpaid charges, including from the sale proceeds of the property if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr B and his family significant injustice, so it does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman