Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has decided the complainant does not qualify for free social care because he has deprived himself of savings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has stopped providing free social care because he inherited some money. Mr X says he only had the money for three weeks and the Council will not accept the evidence he submitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. This includes the complaint replies, the panel decision and a Human Rights Act assessment. I also considered the evidence Mr X submitted to the Council. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Adult social care charges

4. If people have savings of more than £23,250 they have to pay for their social care. A property owned, but not lived in, counts as savings. If the Council thinks someone has deprived themselves of savings in order to get free social care then the Council will treat them as still having the capital.

What happened

5. Mr X started to receive free social care in 2013. He jointly owned a property, which he did not live in, which he did not disclose to the Council.
6. In 2018 Mr X inherited £98,000 from the sale of the property. He did not tell the Council. The Council found out about the inheritance. It decided he would have to pay for his social care because he had more than £23,250. Mr X said he could not pay for the care and he has not received care since October. The Council says that, based on a weekly charge of £160, he would qualify for free care in about eight years time, depending on the rules that apply at the time. The Council decided not to charge Mr X for the care he received from 2013 to 2018.
7. Mr X challenged the decision. He explained he only had the money in his account for three weeks. He said he used the money to pay off a gambling debt he accrued abroad in 2017. He provided an affidavit, from abroad, which was written in 2018. The document said Mr X had incurred a personal debt in 2017 which he had repaid in full in 2018. The amount of the inheritance broadly matched the amount of the debt.
8. The Council decided the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that Mr X had not deprived himself of capital. It said that it would require evidence of the debt when it was incurred in 2017 and more information about the circumstances surrounding the creation of the debt. Mr X says he cannot provide more information because it was a gambling debt.
9. The Council did an assessment to see if the withdrawal of the free care breached Mr X’s human rights. The Council decided it did not. In reaching this decision the Council noted that Mr X had recently spent three months abroad, in the same country he visited in 2017 and 2018, where he was able to cope with no social care.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It is not my role to act as an appeal body or to decide if Mr X has deprived himself of capital. But, I can consider if the Council properly applied the law and considered Mr X’s representations. The law says people have to pay for their care if they have capital in excess of £23,250. Mr X inherited £98,000 which means he did not qualify for free care. If he had not used the money to pay for a debt then he would still have the inheritance and would not requalify for free care for about eight years.
11. The Council considered Mr X’s submission about the use of the money through the complaints procedure and by a panel. However, it was not satisfied that the evidence provided by Mr X was sufficient to demonstrate that he had not deprived himself of capital. Given the amount involved, and the slightly unusual circumstances, I can understand why the Council will not consider changing its position unless Mr X provides evidence of the debt at the time it was incurred in 2017. There is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council considered the case and no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman