Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the valuation of a 50% share in a property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms B, has complained on behalf of her client, Mr C, that the way the Council calculated of the value of a 50% share of a property owned by Mr C’s late father was flawed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. On behalf of Mr C, Ms B disputed the Council’s calculation of the value of the 50% share in a property owned by Mr C’s late father. The remaining 50% is owned by Mr C and another family member. The Council instructed an independent valuer to give an opinion on the likely current market value of a half share of the property. In her correspondence with the Council Ms B said the independent valuation was flawed. She said this was because the beneficial interest in in the property held by Mr C’s father would not give a purchaser rental income or occupation rights and a purchaser would not be able to acquire the remaining beneficial interest held by two people. Ms B said, in these circumstances, the value of Mr C’s father’s 50% share could effectively be nil.
7. In reaching its final decision on this complaint the Council has had regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and case law. Annex B of the Statutory Guidance says where a person has joint beneficial ownership of capital, except where there is evidence that the person owns an unequal share, the total value should be divided equally between the joint owners and the person should be treated as owning an equal share. The valuation must be the current market or surrender value of the capital asset (in this case, the property), whichever is higher, minus 10% of the value if there will be any actual expenses involved in selling the asset.
8. In this case the Council has applied the statutory guidance as it is obliged to do. It has considered all relevant matters including the points made by Ms B. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman