Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to deal properly with his father’s financial assessment for residential accommodation charges. The Council accepts it made mistakes and took too long to resolve the financial assessment. It has waived £250 of the father’s charge but has provided no remedy for the distress caused to Mr B and the time and trouble it has put him to. It needs to correct that.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council failed to deal properly with his father’s financial assessment for residential accommodation charges.

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’. 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)
3. 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr B;
• discussed the complaint with Mr B;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr B and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr B’s parents, Mr & Mrs C, divorced in 1986. They got back together later that year but did not remarry. They bought a house together in 1997 as joint tenants with a joint mortgage. Mr B says his mother put most of the funds into buying the property. The mortgage was paid off in 2005. Mr C did not contribute towards this.
6. Mr C went to live in a care home in 2008 which the Council helped fund. In 2013 Mr & Mrs C severed their joint tenancy and became tenants in common. Mr C agreed his share of the house was 10%, rather than an equal share. Mr B says this reflected their respective contributions towards buying the property. The change enabled Mrs C to leave her share to Mr B and his sister in her will. When she died in April 2015, Mr B and his sister inherited her share of the house.
7. The Council reassessed Mr C’s finances in 2017. It disregarded the value of the home for the first 12 weeks. But it decided Mr C could pay the full cost of his care from 24 July 2015 because his interest in the property he had owned with Mrs C was worth more than £23,250. It decided Mr C had deprived himself of capital when severing the joint tenancy and reducing his interest in the property to 10%. It said it made this decision because Mr C:
• “… when signing the severance papers on 25 July 2013, did so in the knowledge that he had care needs which were being currently met through residential care since 24 February 2008, and that these were ongoing care needs which he would need to contribute towards”.
8. Mr B complained to the Council about its handling of the charges for his father’s care. The Council sent its initial response in April 2018. Mr B followed this up with a complaint raising 17 issues.
9. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint in August, addressing each of his concerns.
10. In November Mr B raised further queries with the Council and sent it more information about his parents’ home and how they paid for it.
11. In December the Council told Mr B it would carry out a thorough review of his correspondence and how it had handled his complaint. It said it would put a hold on his father’s outstanding invoices. It said it hoped to complete the review by the end of January 2019.
12. The Council wrote to Mr B with the outcome of its review on 4 February. It amended its position on several issues but said it needed more information before it could come to a final conclusion. Meanwhile, the invoices remained on hold. It offered to meet Mr B to discuss any questions he may have.
13. In June the Council decided Mr C did not deliberately deprive himself of his interest in the property owned with Mrs C but still had an equal share of the property. On the basis that the property was worth at least £120,000, it decided Mr C had capital over £23,250 and could therefore pay for his own care. It said he owed £65,145.43. But, in recognition of the time taken to deal with the financial assessment, it took £250 off this sum. It offered an extended repayment plan.
14. In July Mr B complained again and disputed the claim that his father’s interest in the property was worth more than £23,250.
15. When the Council replied in September it accepted:
• it had made a mistake in assuming his father had deprived himself of his full interest in the property without first conducting a full inquiry;
• Mr C’s beneficial interest in the property owned with Mrs C (10% of its value) was worth £9,576, so he did not have to pay the full cost of his care.
16. The Council said Mr C now owed £37,686.93, which also took account of its previous offer to reduce the charge by £250.
17. Mr B disputed the outstanding charge in September.
18. When the Council replied in November it accepted:
• it had not taken account of a weekly savings disregard of £5.75;
• it had included Attendance Allowance, which Mr C would not be eligible for as the Council would be funding his care;
• this took the outstanding debt to £18,447.34 (which included the £250 reduction).
19. Mr B had applied for Attendance Allowance for his father when the Council said he would have to pay for his own care. He had been pursuing an appeal for the higher rate of Attendance Allowance when the Council decided Mr C was eligible for Council funding. The Council’s decision meant Mr C was no longer eligible for Attendance Allowance.
20. Mr B exchanged further correspondence with the Council in December 2019 and January 2020, questioning its calculations. In February the Council explained that, taking account of money paid to it and the £250 reduction, Mr C owed £18,514.76. It also sent him a spreadsheet setting out the basis for this calculation.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

21. There is no dispute over the fact the Council has made mistakes and has taken far too long to resolve Mr C’s financial assessment. That is fault by the Council. It has caused Mr C a lot of distress and put him to a great deal of time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the Council. The £250 reduction remedies any injustice caused to Mr C. But it provides no remedy for Mr B. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. I recommended the Council:
• within four weeks, writes to Mr B apologising for its mistakes, the distress this has caused and the time and trouble it has put him to and pays him £500; and
• within eight weeks, identifies the lessons it has learned from this complaint and the action it is taking to ensure similar problems don’t happen again.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation as the Council has agreed to take the action I recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman