Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused to accept property valuations from four estate agents provided as part of a financial assessment to calculate his wife, Mrs X’s contributions towards the cost of her care. As a result the Council has asked them to reimburse over £50,000 in care costs and to arrange and fund Mrs X’s ongoing care. Mr X states they do not have the resources to pay for this. The delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of Mrs X’s assets and whether she is required to self-fund or contribute towards the cost of her care is fault. As are the delays and failings in communication with Mr X. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused to accept property valuations from four estate agents provided as part of a financial assessment to calculate his wife, Mrs X’s contributions towards the cost of her care. He complains the Council has instead used flawed valuations and misrepresented the Care Act, Statutory Guidance and case law to determine his wife has sufficient capital to fund the cost of her care. As a result the Council has asked them to reimburse over £50,000 in care costs and to arrange and fund Mrs X’s ongoing care. Mr X states they do not have the resources to pay for this.
2. Mr X also complains of delays, bullying and failure to respond to his challenges, concerns and requests for clarification and asserts the Council has stonewalled his attempts to resolve the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for care and support

7. Councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges may only cover the cost the council incurs. (Care Act 2014, section 14). Where a Council has decided to charge, it must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution he or she should make towards the cost of their care.
8. The Care Act 2014 and the associated Care and Support Statutory Guidance ("the guidance") set out the rules the Council must follow when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person has to pay towards the costs of their care.
9. In assessing what a person can afford to contribute a local authority must apply the upper and lower capital limits. The upper capital limit is currently set at £23,250 and the lower capital limit at £14,250. People who have over the upper capital limit are expected to pay the full cost of their care. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees. Any capital below the lower limit should be disregarded.
10. The Council’s Care Charging Policy confirms property will be valued in accordance with its current market value at the time of the financial assessment minus:
• 10% of the value to allow for expenses of sale. Any expenses must be connected with the actual sale.
• Any outstanding debts on the property such as a mortgage.
11. The policy states that where there is a dispute about the value of an asset the Council will try to resolve this as quickly as possible by obtaining an independent valuation.

What happened here

12. In 2020 Mrs Y had a stroke. On discharge from hospital she moved to a rehabilitation unit and then to a care home. Mrs Y then returned to live in her own home in February 2021 with an extensive package of care.
13. The Council’s records show officers discussed the cost of Mrs X’s care with Mr X in October 2020 and asked Mr X to complete a financial assessment form. Mr X confirmed they lived in a privately rented property and owned eight properties which they rented out. Based on this information, in January 2021 the Council determined Mrs X would be responsible for the full cost of her care as her estimated capital exceeded the upper threshold.
14. Mr X disputed this and asserted there was little or no equity in the properties and that they were held in trust for their children. Mr X also asserted that as he and Mrs X owned the properties as tenants in common they could not be sold without a court order. The Council noted that although Mr and Mrs X intended to leave the properties to their children on their death, there was no formal trust so Mrs X’s share of the properties would be included in a calculation of her capital.
15. In early February 2021 the Council sent Mr X a copy of its Care Charging policy and a spreadsheet setting out the estimated value of their property portfolio. This initial calculation suggested an estimated equity of £209,567 across the portfolio. The Council asked Mr X to provide current estate agent’s valuations and mortgage statements for each property.
16. It also requested copies of Company Z’s (a company in which Mr and Mrs X were the directors) accounts and balance sheet for the previous year; evidence of any pensions payable to Mrs X; and evidence of Mrs X’s share of the profit from the property portfolio. The Council informed Mr X that personal debts are not accounted for within the financial assessment.
17. Mr X advised the Council that Company Z’s accounts and balance sheets were public information and could be obtained from Companies House. He stated Company Z was currently insolvent and had no material assets. Mr X also advised that no pension payments were currently planned. In relation to Mrs X’s debts, Mr X asked the Council to specify the legislation that required it to ignore debts when calculating Mrs X’s net capital.
18. In March 2021 Mr X provided mortgage statements for seven of the eight properties in their portfolio. Mr X also asked the Council to complete a spreadsheet recording the information it had asked Mr X to provide, his concerns and his questions, and the Council’s responses. Mr X also asked for details of the Council’s complaints process.
19. Mr X provided accounts and bank statements for Company Z in April 2021. He also confirmed he wanted to complain about gaps in the officer’s knowledge, clerical errors, the officer stonewalling him by not answering his questions and not following the guidance the Council had provided him.
20. Later that month Mr X provided documentation relating to cladding issues at one of their properties which affected the value. He confirmed he was awaiting the latest annual mortgage statement for this property. Mr X also confirmed he had requested valuations for all the properties in the portfolio.
21. Mr X provided sales valuations for some properties in late April and May 2021 and updated the Council’s portfolio valuation spreadsheet. He confirmed further valuations would follow shortly. Mr X also noted that there should not be double counting of savings/ equity and the income arising from this. He asserted the Council should not therefore treat the balances of any current accounts as savings. Money paid into these accounts was income, not savings. Mr X asked the Council to confirm his amended version of the spreadsheet was correct and that it had incorrectly treated the current accounts as savings.
22. The Council amended the portfolio valuation spreadsheet to reflect the valuations Mr X had provided and also corrected the valuation of another property which an officer had input incorrectly. These changes gave an estimated equity valuation of approximately £133,500 for Mrs X, which the Council confirmed would make her self-funding. In addition the Council confirmed that as none of the bank accounts provided were specifically business accounts they would all be included in the financial assessment.
23. Mr X was unhappy with the presentation and layout of the Council’s portfolio valuation spreadsheet. He was also unhappy the Council had deducted 10% of the net equity of the properties rather than the value. Where properties were in negative equity deducting 10% from net equity reduced the negative equity rather than increased it.
24. He also noted the Council had used internet sites to value the properties and asserted such sites were well known to overestimate current valuations of properties such as his. He suggested the valuations he was obtaining would show these figures were overly optimistic.
25. In June 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X confirming it had assessed Mrs X as being responsible for the full cost of her care based on the documentary evidence available. As it did not have full evidence to determine the exact equity in the eight properties it had had obtained estimates from other sources. This took Mrs X over the upper capital limit.
26. The Council noted it had written to Mr X on several occasions to request full documentary evidence to support his challenge. But had not received the required level of documentary evidence to allow it to fully review the financial assessment and calculate Mrs X’s capital.
27. It asserted it had followed the relevant guidance regarding capital held in accounts. It asked Mr X to provide valuations for the outstanding properties and confirmed if Mrs X’s capital was found to be below £23,250, it would still require the outstanding information regarding her pension. The Council also confirmed it would be presenting the case to the Financial Resolution Group (FRG) for a final decision and invited Mr X to submit any further evidence he wanted to be considered.
28. Mr X was unhappy with this response and wrote to the Council asserting its behaviour towards him was bullying. He was concerned about the tone of the correspondence, persistent stonewalling, poor administrative competence; long delays in responding to his correspondence and threats to send the case to the FRG. Mr X confirmed he now had valuations for five of the eight properties and information from their pension provider but was holding them back. He intended to drip feed them to encourage the Council to address the issues one at a time. Mr X considered it unreasonable for the Council to impose deadlines on requests for information when it had not responded to his questions and concerns. He requested a virtual meeting to go through the evidence with senior officers.
29. The Council advised Mr X it would respond to his complaint in line with its complaints process.
30. In early July 2021 the Council provided Mr X with an updated property portfolio spreadsheet. Mr X confirmed the calculation methodology was now substantially correct. He provided two further valuations and noted that including these valuations brought Mrs X’s share of the equity on the portfolio below the threshold of £23,250. Mr X confirmed he would request valuations for the remaining three properties. He asserted it was likely these properties were overvalued on the current spreadsheet and would bring Mrs X’s share of equity well below the threshold.
31. Mr X also again raised the issue of Mrs X’s credit card debt and director’s loan from Company Z. He maintained these should be offset against the equity in the properties to give a true net value of Mrs X’s assets. Mr X also contested the Council’s treatment of balances in their rent and current accounts as savings and suggested moving to assessing Mrs X’s income for the purposes of her contribution.
32. An officer telephoned Mr X to discuss his complaint and then wrote to him setting out the Council’s response. The Council upheld some elements of Mr X’s complaint. It acknowledged the tone of the email in June 2021 was defensive and that there had been some delays in replying to him. It apologised the email caused Mr X offence. The Council also noted some responses were generic in tone and that in its attempts to gain information it had missed some opportunities to respond to Mr X’s specific queries.
33. The Council confirmed that due to the complexities of the assessment it had suggested a referral to the FRG, but this was not progressed as there was outstanding information. It advised the purpose of the FRG was to aid and support decisions and the Council did not want this practice to feel threatening.
34. The Council appointed an officer, Officer 1 as Mr X’s main point of contact. Mr X provided the valuations for the final three properties in late July 2021 and asked the Council to update the property portfolio spreadsheet. He asserted the delay in obtaining a complete set of valuation was entirely the Council’s fault as it had not followed guidance on calculating net equity and there had been unacceptably slow response times. Mr X asked Officer 1 to confirm the Council was no longer looking at equity when assessing contributions and would now focus on income.
35. Officer 1 advised Mr X the adult social care team were in discussions with the legal services team to confirm the approach going forward and the next steps. Mr X questioned the basis of the legal team’s involvement, which he considered an unnecessary delay, and asked for copies of all correspondence with the legal team.
36. In August 2021 Mr X made a formal complaint about Officer 1. He asserted all progress had come to a halt since Officer 1’s involvement and was unhappy Officer 1 had not shared the communication with the legal team or told him of the reason for their involvement.
37. Having considered the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request Mr X made an additional formal complaint that although there were multiple officers involved in the matter, the calculation on equity was materially wrong and had been from the outset. He considered the failure to correctly calculate the net assessable equity figure appeared to be a matter of endemic incompetence. Mr X also complained that multiple officers had campaigned for the case to be sent to FRG even though this fundamental error was still in place.
38. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint but did not uphold his concerns. It acknowledged Mr X felt progress had halted while it obtained legal advice but confirmed Officer 1 was not responsible for this. The Council also confirmed its referral for legal advice was confidential and would not be disclosed. It noted it was highly unusual for the Council to receive a request for financial assistance with care costs from someone with an extensive property portfolio. And explained due diligence was required to ensure it used public money appropriately.
39. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response to his complaint. He maintained that notwithstanding any requests for legal advice, Officer 1 could have provided him with an updated property portfolio spreadsheet. Mr X also disputed that Mrs X’s financial assessment was complex. He considered it was a simple calculation of the market value less liabilities, less 10% to allow for sale costs. Mr X asserted the number of properties in the portfolio was irrelevant and that the portfolio was not extensive.
40. In September 2021 the Council advised Mr X it intended to obtain its own valuations of Mr X’s properties. Mr X disputed the need for this and set out a number of prerequisites for any valuations. He wanted the Council’s valuer to provide a written declaration explaining why their valuations would be more accurate that those Mr X had provided. He stated the valuation must be reasonably attainable for a sale within a few week, and not an inflated or ambitious figure. In addition Mr X stated that should the Council’s valuations be materially greater than those he had provided; he reserved the right to invite the valuer to sell one or more of the properties. This would be on the understanding that they would be liable to action for damages if they did not achieve the valuations claimed.
41. The Council sought legal advice and in October 2021 the Council asked Mr X to provide a further set of detailed valuations for each of the eight properties from an alternative estate agent. The Council explained the valuations already provided were lower than it would have expected and it needed to ensure it was taking account of the correct property values. The Council also requested an up to date rental income figure for each of property. It confirmed that once it had received this information, depending on the outcome it would then consider the information provided in relation to Mrs X’s income. The Council asked Mr X to provide additional information regarding Mrs X’s pension and Company Z.
42. Mr X again disputed the need for further valuations and asserted he had already provided the most accurate and reliable valuations possible. He stated he would only arrange valuations which took account of the internal condition of the properties if the Council underwrote the costs of doing so. This could include loss of rent and the cost of setting up a new tenancy.
43. In addition Mr X asked for a copy of a correctly calculated property portfolio spreadsheet. Mr X raised a number of queries regarding the information requested in relation to Mrs X’s income. And advised he was not prepared to provide information regarding Mrs X’s income until the Council confirmed the equity in the property portfolio fell below the threshold.
44. In November 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining its position on properties within the portfolio that may have negative equity. It stated a capital asset is valued at its market value, less 10% for the cost of sale and debts which are secured on the asset. It noted there was no provision in either statutory guidance or regulations to total up a person’s capital assets and subtract any unsecured debts from them.
45. The Council confirmed its position was therefore that if any properties were found to be in negative equity this should not be netted off other capital assets. Given the disparity between the original property valuations and the information available online the Council considered a second valuation was required. This would then establish the point at which Mrs X may fall below the threshold.
46. The Council asked Mr X to provide additional valuations for each property by the end of the year. It advised that if he declined, the Council would obtain independent valuations and pass the cost on to Mr X.
47. Mr X disputed the Council’s position regarding negative equity and asserted the Council was assessing the value of the portfolio rather than individual properties. He considered it would be inequitable and against natural justice to cherry pick properties. Mr X asked the Council to provide case law to support its position that unsecured debts cannot be considered when assessing net assets.
48. Although Mr X did not accept further valuations were necessary he confirmed he would obtain them on the basis he would then test their accuracy by inviting the valuer to sell one or more property to see if the valuations are supported by the market. Should the property fail to achieve the price in the valuation he asserted the Council would be liable for the difference between the valuation and the price obtained.
49. The Council reviewed the matter and in May 2022 wrote to Mr X confirming its position. The Council noted it had advised Mr X in January 2021 that based on the information he had provided it had determined Mrs X’s capital placed her over the financial threshold and she would be classified as a self-funder. It also noted it had not received any information since then to demonstrate Mrs X’s capital had fallen below £23,250. The Council stated it had attempted to engage with Mr X to obtain a complete picture of Mrs X’s capital assets and income. But this had been unsuccessful and it did not consider engaging in further correspondence was likely to resolve the matter.
50. The Council considered Mr X’s drip feed of information and insistence the Council complied with his prerequisites before he provided information were an attempt to obfuscate the financial assessment process. It was satisfied it had been unable to carry out a full financial assessment due to Mr X’s refusal to cooperate. However it considered it had enough information to show Mrs X had capital above the financial limit.
51. On this basis the Council confirmed its decisions in January 2021 stood and Mrs X was responsible for meeting the full cost of her care. There was therefore no rationale for the Council to continue to pay for Mrs X’s care. The Council confirmed it would continue to arrange Mrs X’s care until 10 June 2022 to allow Mr X time to set up alternative arrangements.
52. It also confirmed Mrs X would need to reimburse the Council:
• £10,831.75 for the residential care between October 2020 and February 2021; and
• £39,234.30 in respect of the cost for Mrs X’s care between 11 February 2021 and 10 June 2022
53. The Council suggested Mr X contact its credit control team to discuss a repayment plan.
54. Mr X disputed that he had failed to engage with the Council and asserted the root of the problem was the Council’s unwillingness to accept its initial valuations were incorrect. Mr X stated he had been subjected to repeated bullying, stonewalling, unsupported assertions, and misrepresentations of the Care Act, guidance, and case law. He noted that despite having copies of valuations for each property since July 2021, the Council had not provided him with an updated property portfolio spreadsheet. Mr X was satisfied he had provided sufficient information to show Mrs X met the criteria for financial support and had responded to reasonable enquiries. He denied refusing to cooperate with the assessment.
55. In addition, Mr X confirmed that Mrs X did not have either assets or income to repay the sum the Council was claiming, or to pay the ongoing weekly cost. He would therefore be unable to set up a private funding arrangement and asserted the Council should continue to pay for Mrs X’s care.
56. Mr X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He also contacted his MP and instructed solicitors to assist him in disputing the Council’s position. In early June 2022 the Council advised it would instruct the District Valuer to carry out independent valuations of each of the properties to assess Mrs X’s interest in the property. These valuations would include external and internal inspections.
57. The Council confirmed it would meet the costs of the inspections but would not accept liability for any other costs. It also confirmed it would continue to fund Mrs X’s care package, on a without prejudice basis, until it had received the valuations and reviewed the case. The debt for this care and support would continue to accrue and would be repayable pending the outcome of these enquiries.
58. In addition the Council advised that if Mr X refused to cooperate or obstructed the valuation process the Council would reconfirm its position that Mrs X should self-fund her care and would take action to recover the debt.
59. In response to my enquiries the Council states that in the majority of cases where it is approached for financial assistance with the cost of care, the person will own a single property. In those cases the Council’s usual practice is to ask the person to provide three valuations of the property and it will take the average. The Council may also undertake an internet based valuation for comparative purposes and to identify any significant discrepancies which may warrant further investigation.
60. As Mr and Mrs X own eight properties the Council initially asked for a single valuation of each property rather than 24 valuations. It states with hindsight it should have asked Mr X to provide three valuations for each property from the outset.
61. The Council states it initially compared the valuations for each property Mr X had provided against internet based valuation estimates. It accepted that the internet estimates would not be as detailed or take into account the full range of factors which might impact on a property’s value. However, the internet estimates all placed the predicted values of the properties considerably higher than Mr X’s valuations.
62. It also took into account the information provided with Mr X’s valuations, which it states projected bleak prospects of selling the properties and went to some lengths to detail the unattractive nature of the properties. The Council states this gave it cause to question whether it had sufficient information about Mr X’s instructions to the estate agents and his pre-existing relationships with them.
63. The Council states it accepted the valuations could be correct but it was not satisfied they eliminated the need to seek further valuations for comparative purposes. The Council states it asked Mr X to source a further valuation as it considered it unlikely Mr X would accept valuations provided by a company the Council had instructed. As Mr X refused, the Council has instructed the District Valuer to carryout inspections and valuations of each property, at the Council’s expense.
64. The Council is satisfied the summary of the legislation, guidance, and case law it provided to Mr X is accurate. It states the Care Act, Regulations and statutory guidance do not specifically cover how a local authority should assess a collection of property investments. And that case law on this area is limited. It disputes cherry picking which properties to include in the assessment and states it has included all of the properties Mrs X owns or part owns. It will consider the debts owed in respect of each property against the valuation of the property against which the debt is secured. The Council maintains it is not obliged, as Mr X suggests, to assess the value of the properties as a whole and offset any negative equity in one property against positive equity in other properties.
65. In relation to its communication with Mr X the Council considers it provided sufficient and appropriate information as quickly as possible. It states that given the complexity and additional information demands Mr X made some delays in replying were inevitable. It disputes Mr X’s perception of bullying and an unprofessional tone is evident or evidenced in its correspondence. But considers Mr X was unnecessarily challenging and insulting towards officers.
66. Mr X has responded to the draft decision and maintains the Council has stonewalled him and failed to address his concerns. He considers the Council has used emotive language when describing the property portfolio as ‘extensive’ and his valuations as giving ‘bleak prospects’ for selling the properties. Mr X is concerned the use of this language suggests officers are basing decisions on their personal prejudice, rather than following procedure and objective evidence.
67. He is happy for the District Valuer to be involved and would like to provide a full list of ‘valuation factors’ for the District Valuer to consider as part of the valuation process. Mr X would like the valuations to be based on current market valuations rather that those that would have applied 18 months ago.
68. Mr X continues to challenge the Council’s position regarding properties in negative equity, which he considers perverse. He has instructed solicitors and asserts it will be for the court to determine the correct interpretation of legislation and statutory guidance.

Analysis

69. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role assess Mrs X’s finances or to determine the extent to which to she should fund her care; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council has followed the correct process. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
70. The Care Act statutory guidance sets out how a council should calculate the value of capital. It states the valuation must be the current market value minus:
• 10% of the value if there will be actual costs involved in selling the asset; and
• any outstanding debts secured on the asset, for example a mortgage.
71. In line with this guidance and the Council’s own policy, it asked Mr X to provide valuations and mortgage statements for each of their properties. The Council also obtained internet based valuations. Mr X considers the internet based valuations are inflated and inaccurate but I do not consider it was fault for the Council to obtain them. The Council accepts these valuations would not be as detailed as the valuations obtained by Mr X and has not sought to rely on them in isolation when calculating Mrs X’s capital.
72. Mr X disputes the need for further valuations but it is for the Council to determine whether it has sufficient evidence of the value of Mrs X’s capital. Given the differences in value and Council’s concerns about the negative tone of Mr X’s valuations it is appropriate that it obtains further information to satisfy itself of the values of the properties.
73. The statutory guidance confirms that where the value of a property is disputed the council should aim to resolve this as quickly as possible. It states councils should try and obtain an independent valuation of the property within the 12 week disregard period where a person is in a care home. Although the guidance does not specify a time frame where the person is receiving care other than in a care home, I consider it a similar time frame would be appropriate.
74. Although Mr submitted the mortgage statements in March 2021, he did not submit property valuations for all eight properties until late July 2021. Mr X states the delay in submitting these valuations was due to fault by the Council but I am not persuaded this was the case. The onus was on Mr X to obtain these valuations and irrespective on any other concerns Mr X had, the matter could not be progressed until he provided the property valuations.
75. I do however consider there was an element of drift after Mr X provided the estate agents’ valuations. Having received the final valuations in July 20021, the Council took legal advice and decided in September 2021 it would obtain its own valuations. When Mr X objected it then took further legal advice and in November 2021 asked Mr X to obtain further valuations. It then confirmed in June 2022 it would instruct the District Valuer to inspect and provide valuations on each of the properties.
76. The decision to instruct the District Valuer and move matters forward is to be welcomed but could have been taken sooner. The Council’s charging policy confirms it will attempt to resolve disputes as quickly as possible by obtaining an independent valuation. This period of uncertainty regarding the value of Mrs X’s capital should not have been allowed to continue for almost a year after Mr X had submitted his valuations. I consider the Council should have been more proactive in resolving the valuation dispute and that the delay in doing so amounts to fault.
77. The District Valuation Service provides independent, impartial valuations. It is for the District Valuer to determine the factors to be taken into account in the valuations. Although Mr X would like the valuations to be based on current market values I consider they should reflect the property values at the time the financial assessments started. The Council is assessing the extent to which Mrs X should fund/ contribute towards the cost of her care since October 2020. The assessment should therefore be based on the value of Mrs X’s capital at that time, not its current value. However, I recognise the current valuations will be relevant in establishing any changes in Mrs X’s finances which may affect her contribution.
78. Mr X and the Council have differing views on how any negative equity and Mrs X’s personal debts should be treated in the financial assessment. There is no provision in the legislation or guidance for unsecured debts to be offset against capital assets. Nor is there provision for debts secured against one asset to be offset against another asset. Mr X argues that legislation and guidance does not expressly preclude this. He has instructed his solicitor to challenge the legality of the Council’s position and anticipates this issue will now be resolved by the court.
79. It is clear from the correspondence between Mr X and the Council that each considers the other has attempted to frustrate the financial assessment process. Mr X has questioned officers’ competence and accused the Council of stonewalling him while the Council asserts Mr X has refused to cooperate and has obstructed the process.
80. The Council has accepted some of Mr X’s complaints and acknowledged there had been some delays in replying to him. It also noted some responses were generic and that it had not responded to all of Mr X’s specific queries. While there were delays in the Council’s correspondence with Mr X, there is no evidence the Council was ‘stonewalling’ him. Mr X wanted the Council to complete a log detailing their communication, outstanding requests and when information was provided. This is not something we would routinely expect councils to do and I do not consider it was fault for the Council to decline to do so.
81. I would however have expected the Council to share the updated property portfolio spreadsheet with Mr X once it had all of the valuations and mortgage statements. This would have clearly illustrated the differences between the Council’s valuations of the properties and Mr X’s and how it had calculated Mrs X would self-fund her care.
82. The delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of the value of Mrs X’s assets have caused Mr X frustration and distress and put him to unnecessary time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

83. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £250 in recognition of the frustration, distress and time and trouble he has experienced as a result of the delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of Mrs X’s assets and whether she is required to self-fund or contribute towards the cost of her care.
84. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.
85. Subject to Mr X’s cooperation and the District Valuer completing their inspections and valuations, I also recommend the Council complete Mrs X’s financial assessment within two months of the final decision on this complaint. The Council should then provide Mr X with a written copy of the assessments and a revised property portfolio spreadsheet. It should also confirm the charge for Mrs X’s care since October 2020, detailing any changes in the charges.

Back to top

Final decision

86. The delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of Mrs X’s assets and whether she is required to self-fund or contribute towards the cost of her care is fault. As are the delays and failings in communication with Mr X. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman