Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her mother in law had deprived herself of assets by transferring her share of a property to her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that her mother-in-law, Mrs A, had deprived herself of assets by transferring her share of a property to her son.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs A was hospitalised in July 2019 following a fall. The Council noted Mrs A finalised a deed of gift 17 days after her hospitalisation and two days before she was discharged with fixed term support at home. The Council also noted the case notes documented the care package was being arranged between 6 August to 14 August 2019 and Mrs A signed the deed of gift on 12 August 2019.
6. Annex E of the Care Act 2014 sets out guidance regarding determining when deprivation of assets have occurred. The guidance notes the local authority should consider the following before deciding whether deprivation for the purpose of avoiding care and support charges have occurred:
1. Whether avoiding the care and support charge was a significant motivation in the timing of the disposal of the asset; at the point the capital was disposed of could the person have a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support?
2. Did the person have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs?
7. The Council decided there was enough information to show Mrs A, and her family, had a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support as the decision to sign over her share of the property was made after her hospitalisation, and after arrangements for the package of care had begun.
8. The Council also considered the evidence provided by Mrs A regarding the fact estate planning had been ongoing since 2016. However, the Council decided this did not support that a deprivation had not occurred.
9. The role of the Ombudsman is to review how the Council made its decision. In this case, the Council properly considered the relevant evidence and applied it to the guidance set out in Annex E. The Council has also provided a clear rationale as to why it considers the evidence supports that Mrs A had a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support at the time the deprivation of assets occurred.
10. As the Council has properly considered all the relevant information, it is entitled to make its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision that Mrs A had deprived herself of assets.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman