Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s financial assessment of his late father’s assets was incorrect, causing financial loss and distress. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s financial assessment of his late father’s assets and he is unhappy with its handling of his complaints. Mr X says his father’s estate will suffer a financial loss and the family has suffered stress due to the Council chasing payment of care charges.
2. Miss Z has brought the complaint on behalf of Mr X.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. I spoke to Miss Z and I reviewed documents provided by Miss Z and the Council.
7. I gave Miss Z and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care charges

8. A council carries out a care needs assessment to decide whether an individual has care needs it must meet. It then carries out a financial assessment to see how much an individual will pay towards their care costs.
9. In assessing what a person should pay a council must apply the upper and lower capital limits. The upper capital limit is £23,250 and the lower capital limit £14,250.
10. A person with assets above £23,250 must pay the full cost of their care. Those with capital between £23,250 and £14,250 must contribute towards costs. Those with capital below the lower limit do not pay.
11. Capital includes property, such as a person’s home. A council will need to work out the current market value of a property to take account of it in the financial assessment. If there are any disputes about the market value, the council should get a precise valuation.

Council complaint policy

12. The Council publishes it complaints policy on its website.
13. At stage 1 the service area will consider a complaint and respond in 15 days.
14. If a person is unhappy with the response they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage 2.
15. The policy says “make sure you include the reasons why you want to escalate your complaint. Without this, we may not agree to take the complaint to stage two”.
16. It will provide a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
17. If a person remains unhappy then may contact the Ombudsman.

What happened

18. Mr X complained to the Council about its financial assessment of his late father Mr Y. He said the Council had taken account of 50% of the value of Mr Y’s home, the other 50% being held on trust. However, it had disregarded his own professional valuation which valued Mr Y’s share at nil.
19. The Council responded that it was aware Mr X’s valuer had a different opinion, however this was not a “Care Act valuation”. It had the property valued in line with the Care Act statutory guidance and its valuer found Mr Y’s share had a value. It took this into account and decided Mr Y had assets above the capital limit and so could pay his care costs in full.
20. Mr X complained further as his believed his valuation was a “Care Act valuation” and stated so within the document. He asked the Council to explain why the Council did not accept this as a Care Act valuation.
21. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request to go to stage 2. It explained it would consider if there were matters that needed further explanation and if so pass this to an independent review at stage 2.
22. The Council then provided a further response to Mr X. It said it considered Mr X’s correspondence as a request for further information rather than a request to go to stage 2. It was therefore providing further information. It said:
• It could not see that Mr X’s valuation stated it was a Care Act valuation.
• Mr X’s valuer said the trust would not sell the property however there was no evidence to support this. Further, a forced sale of Mr Y’s share could be possible, for purchase by an investor. Its valuer considered this option whereas Mr X’s valuer did not.
• It stood by the valuation it obtained which considered the option of a forced sale and found Mr Y’s share had a value.
• If Mr X remained unhappy he could go to stage 2.
23. Mr X maintained his valuation did take into account the circumstances surrounding the valuation and was a Care Act valuation. He also disputed the Council’s view that anyone would be willing or able to purchase Mr Y’s share. He asked to go to stage 2.
24. The Council said it was satisfied the service was correct in its approach that Mr Y’s share had value and so did not accept Mr X’s own valuation. It would not review the complaint further at stage 2 as it did not believe this would result in a different outcome. He could contact the Ombudsman.
25. Mr X remained unhappy and again asked for a stage 2 review. However, the Council again referred him to the Ombudsman.
26. Mr X told the Ombudsman the valuation he obtained specifically says it is a Care Act valuation yet the Council refused to accept this. Further the Council refused to investigate at stage 2 despite this being available under its complaints process.
27. The Council has provided a copy of its valuation. This outlines how the valuer reached their decision on the property’s value with reference to the information relied on and relevant law and policy. It includes an explanation from the valuer as to why they think the property has a value and how that may be realised, taking into account that the trust may be unwilling to sell their share.

Findings

28. Where there is a dispute over the value of a property a council must get a precise valuation. The Council got a valuation in line with the statutory guidance. I find no fault.
29. We would expect the council to consider any challenge to its decision. The Council considered Mr X’s own valuation and found it was not a “Care Act valuation”. It therefore disregarded this. The Council gave reasons for its decision and I cannot question its judgement. I find no fault in its decision making.
30. Mr X disputed the Council’s view that his valuation was not a Care Act valuation. The Council responded further to say it could not see evidence that it was. Further Mr Y’s valuation did not take into account the options available to sell the property. The Council explained its valuation considered this relevant information and found Mr Y’s share had a value that could be realised. Therefore, its decision remained the same. The Council gave reasons for its decision with reference to the evidence relied on. I find no fault in its decision making.
31. I recognise Mr X disagreed with the Council’s view however I cannot find fault simply because Mr X disagrees with the Council. I can only find fault if the Council did not follow a proper decision making process. However, the documents show the Council considered all the information provided, including Mr X’s valuation, and reached a reasoned decision in line with the law.
32. The Council explained to Mr X why it would not consider his complaint further at stage 2 and referred him to the Ombudsman. The Council was entitled to reach this decision and it acted properly in giving Mr X its reasons. However, the Council’s complaints policy does not make clear it has discretion to refuse a stage 2 request or say on what grounds the Council may refuse a request. This does not amount to fault but I draw it to the Council’s attention so it may consider amending its policy for clarity.
33. I will not further investigate whether Mr X’s valuation states it is “Care Act valuation” or not. This is because any fault did not cause injustice. The Council’s final decision was not based on the title of Mr X’s valuation but the content.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr Y’s financial assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman