Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to apply a discretionary disregard to Mr B’s grandfather’s, Mr C’s property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council, and it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome to that already provided to Mr B by the Council. Mr B can challenge any dispute about the value of Mr C’s asset in court and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council refused to disregard the share of the property and asset, his grandfather, Mr C owns in its financial assessment of his care. Mr B says the Council’s decision to include all three properties and the light industrial units in the assessment affects him, his brother, and their families. Mr B says the Council should disregard Mr C’s share of the property because there is a section 52 planning agreement in place that only allows those involved in the management of the adjoining light industrial units to live at the properties and disputes the Council’s valuation of Mr C’s assets.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained a member of its ‘Arm’s Length Estates Team’ who is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Engineers (FRICS) and works under the guidelines imposed by the District Valuer, undertook a valuation of the whole of the properties owned by three tenants in common under one title deed to be able to determine the value of Mr C’s share of the dwelling and commercial properties. Mr C owns one third of all the properties. The valuer took into consideration selling costs, Mr C’s share of the debts on the properties, and the cost of legal proceeding required for an Order of Sale and reduced the value of Mr C’s asset by £42,500. It considered Mr B’s view that a s52 planning restriction on the property, that only allows for management of the company to live in the properties, and determined this would not prevent interested parties investing in Mr C’s share.
7. Paragraph 17 of Annex B Treatment of Capital under the Care Act 2014 statutory guidance explains a professional valuer should be asked to provide a current market valuation. The Council has done this and has explained the reasons why it will not apply a discretionary disregard to Mr C’s property and assets. We could not say there is enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. It will be for Mr B to challenge the valuation and the amount of the deductions in court if he disputes the Council’s professional valuer.

Care and support statutory guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council warranting investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman