Summary: Mrs X complains the Council carried out an incorrect financial assessment of her mother, Mrs Y’s assets when she applied for assistance with her residential care costs. She said this caused Mrs Y considerable distress and inconvenience. The Council was at fault when it initially failed to provide a written record of its financial assessment and delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint however, neither Mrs X nor Mrs Y experienced a significant injustice because of this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council carried out an incorrect financial assessment of her mother, Mrs Y’s assets when she applied for assistance with her residential care costs.
2. She also complained the Council took an unreasonably long time to respond to her complaint about the financial assessment.
3. Mrs X said Mrs Y experienced distress and she was put to time and trouble because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included email and letter correspondence shared between Mrs X and the Council and Mrs Y’s financial assessment.
8. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law

9. The Care Act 2014 says councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges may only cover the cost the council incurs.
10. Councils must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution they should make to their personal budget for care.
11. Where a local authority has decided to charge, except where a light touch assessment is permissible, it must carry out a financial assessment of what the person can afford to pay and, once complete, it must give a written record of that assessment to the person. It should explain how the assessment has been carried out, what the charge will be and how often it will be made, and if there is any fluctuation in charges, the reason.
12. Where the person has capital above the upper capital limit of £23,250, the person will need to pay the costs of their care in full.
13. Where the council decides, after making appropriate enquiries, the person has deliberately tried to avoid paying for their care by depriving themselves of capital or income, it may charge the person as though they still have the capital or income.
14. When deciding whether a person has deliberately deprived themselves of assets the council should consider:
• Whether avoiding care costs was a significant motivation at the time the person disposed of the asset, including whether the person had a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support at that time; and
• Whether the person had a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs.

Council’s complaint procedure

15. The Council’s adult social care complaint process allows the Council 30 working days up to a maximum of six months to investigate a complaint.
16. It says if it is not going to be possible to investigate a complaint within 30 working days it will contact the complainant and explain why. On occasion, the Council may need to extend the timescale for response due to sickness or absence.
17. It says, if an investigation takes longer than six months to complete, the Council will write to the complainant and explain why.

What happened

18. Mrs Y is elderly and has poor eyesight and hearing. She requires assistance to carry out her daily activities. In December 2018, Mrs Y moved into a residential home. Shortly after this, her daughter, Mrs X applied to the Council on Mrs Y’s behalf for assistance with her care costs.
19. In May 2019, Mrs X received a phone call from the Council refusing her request for assistance. The Council said it conducted a search on the land registry which showed Mrs Y was the owner of a property valued at £50,000 and had capital of £28,224. The Council said the combined value of Mrs Y’s assets was over the threshold to receive assistance with her care costs. Mrs X disagreed with this and said Mrs Y had not owned the property in question since 1995.
20. In late May 2019 Mrs X complained to the Council about the assessment and sent it a copy of a land registry search, which showed that she was the owner of the property, not Mrs Y. She said the Council declared Mrs Y’s capital was higher than it was and provided the Council with bank statements in support of this.
21. The Council reassessed Mrs Y’s application and sent a revised financial assessment to Mrs X, this time without including the property it previously believed was in Mrs Y’s name. The Council maintained there was approximately £28,000 unaccounted for, which it would treat as “notional capital”. This meant Mrs Y would be treated as if she still had that money. The Council said Mrs Y still did not qualify for help towards funding her residential care.
22. The Council formally responded to Mrs X’s complaint in December 2019 after investigating Mrs X’s other complaint points. The Council explained it conducted a further land registry check after Mrs X’s complaint and the registry now showed that Mrs X previously owned the property then transferred the property to Mrs Y in 1995. The Council could not explain this discrepancy.
23. With regards to the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s capital, the Council confirmed it reviewed the bank statements provided by Mrs X but maintained there was still approximately £28,000 which remained unaccounted for. The Council said it would not change its position until it received evidence proving otherwise. The Council apologised for the delay in completing the assessment and explained this was caused by a member of staff taking a leave of absence. The Council concluded the letter by advising it would conduct a further review of Mrs Y’s finances and asked Mrs X to provide details of all Mrs Y’s bank accounts.
24. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and wrote to the Council in January 2020, providing her calculations regarding Mrs Y’s bank accounts.
    She said the Council was wrong to state the land registry was incorrect and should take responsibility for making the error. She disagreed with the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s capital and expressed disappointment that the Council responded to her complaint on Christmas Eve.
25. Mrs X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman shortly after this. During the investigation, the Council confirmed it has not received evidence from Mrs X which would explain the unidentified £28,000.

Findings

26. Mrs X complained the Council relied on an incorrect land registry search in conducting a financial assessment of Mrs Y’s finances. The Council has advised that when it conducted an initial search of the land registry, the property appeared to be in Mrs X’s name. It conducted a second search which showed the property had been transferred to Mrs Y. It is possible the Council misread the records on the land registry. I stop short of calling this fault as I cannot know this for sure. After Mrs Y provided information which contradicted this, the Council searched the land registry again and revised the financial assessment with the correct information. This was an appropriate action for the Council to take.
27. Mrs X requested a financial assessment in December 2018 and the Council did not complete this until May 2019. This delay is fault. It has already apologised for this in its complaint response and that is an appropriate remedy. The law requires the Council to send a written record of its financial assessment setting out its decision and the reasons for it. The evidence indicates the Council informed Mrs X of the outcome of this financial assessment over the phone. This is fault. The law allows the Council to make a light touch assessment if it deems this is necessary but there is nothing to suggest this was a light touch assessment. I do not consider Mrs Y to have suffered a significant injustice due to this as the Council made her aware of the outcome and explained its reasons why.
28. Mrs X has complained the Council took a long time to respond to her complaint and upset Mrs Y by issuing the response during the festive period. The Council’s complaints procedure allows it a maximum of six months to deliver a response to a complaint. The Council issued its response to Mrs X’s complaint approximately two weeks later than it should have done. This is fault on the Council’s part. However, the delay is not significantly outside of the Council’s timescale and the delay has not led to a significant injustice for Mrs X or Mrs Y. It was appropriate for the Council to send the complaint response when the investigation was completed, even if this fell during the festive period.
29. Mrs X remains unhappy with the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s finances. Specifically, she is unhappy with the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s capital.
    The law allows the Council to consider any undeclared income as notional capital. The Council assessed the information Mrs X provided and delivered a financial assessment which set out its reasons for refusing Mrs Y assistance with her care costs. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question a decision which has been properly made. There is no evidence the Council was at fault in how it carried out the assessment. The Council has advised it will conduct a reassessment of Mrs Y’s finances once it receives bank statements which make a difference to its decision. It is open to Mrs X to supply this information if she is unhappy. There is no fault on the part of the Council in the way it carried out the financial assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was fault on the Council’s part when it failed to issue a written financial assessment and delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint but neither she nor Mrs Y experienced a significant injustice because of this. There was no fault in the way it carried out the financial assessment. I have therefore completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman