Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include the complainant’s mother’s 50% share in a property in its financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the substantive issue to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, has complained about the Council’s decision to include his mother’s 50% share in a property in its financial assessment and the way it dealt with the matter.

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. (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 responses to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B told us his parents owned a property as tenants in common. After his father passed away in 2019, he and his brothers became the owners of his father’s 50% share in the property. His mother subsequently moved into a care home during 2020. The Council carried out a financial assessment for her. It sought advice from her family on the value of the property. Mr B told us he obtained three valuations from estate agents and all of them said his mother’s 50% share in the property had no value.
7. The Council decided to include the 50% share in the property owned by Mr B’s mother in its financial assessment. Mr B appealed against that decision. As part of the appeal the Council approached the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to carry out an independent valuation.
8. Mr B told us his family sold the property during 2021 because of a change in their circumstances. In July 2021 the Council told Mr B the sale of the property prevented the VOA from inspecting it and prohibited the Council from including the VOA valuation in the appeal process. The VOA were, however, able to provide initial advice. The Council said it had agreed to pay the care home fees during the appeal process on a without prejudice basis. It asked Mr B to repay these fees.
9. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the “Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014”, and the “Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014”. When a council arranges a care home placement, it must follow these rules when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the costs of their residential care.
10. In reaching its final decision on this complaint the Council has had regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and sought legal advice. 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. The statutory guidance says the current market value will be the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller.
11. In this case the Council has applied the statutory guidance as it is obliged to do. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating the valuation of the 50% share issue. We would not investigate a standalone complaint from Mr B about the way the Council dealt with the matter if we are not investigating the substantive issue. If Mr B wishes to continue to dispute the valuation of the 50% share, it is open to him to take the matter to court to seek a ruling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman