Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a discretionary property disregard. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained about the Council’s decision not to apply a discretionary property disregard to her mother’s property. Miss B lives in the property.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Miss B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says if someone enters a care home permanently, the share in their existing (main or only) home is usually considered as capital. Councils may use their discretion to disregard the value of the property. But they need to balance the exercise of that discretion with ensuring a person’s assets are not maintained at public expense.
8. Miss B told us she sold her own property to move in with her mother four years ago and she invested funds from her home into her mother’s home to be her carer. But, following a stroke, Miss B’s mother moved into a care home in September 2020. Miss B made a previous complaint to us about the Council’s decision not to apply a property disregard and she said the Council had failed to allow her an opportunity to appeal the decision. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to use its discretion to disregard the property. But we said it was fault for the Council not to allow an opportunity to people to challenge decisions by its panel about discretionary property disregards. The Council agreed to amend its process.
9. In October 2021 the Council’s internal property disregard panel reviewed additional information Miss B had provided, including her mother’s GP records.
10. The panel considered whether the Council should apply a discretionary property disregard and again concluded that it should not do so. In a letter to Miss B the Council said the panel accepted she had provided a level of care and support to her mother and that this would have increased over time. But, having considered the additional information, the panel did not consider that this would have amounted to a significant saving to the public purse as a direct result. The panel concluded the Council should offer a deferred payment taking account of the amount Miss B had invested in the property. (A deferred payment agreement lets a person use the value of their home to help pay care home costs. Councils do not write off the deferred payment. It is repaid later, usually from the proceeds of the person’s house sale.)
11. We are not an appeal body. The Council considered the information Miss B provided and the statutory guidance but decided not to apply a discretionary property disregard. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. That means we cannot question the merits of the decision the Council reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman