Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat some of the expenditure of her mother Mrs Y’s capital as a deprivation of assets and notional capital in its calculation of her care fee contributions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y has Alzheimer’s. Mrs X is Mrs Y’s daughter, is her main carer at home and holds Power of Attorney (PoA) for Mrs Y for property and finance matters.
2. Mrs X complains the Council unfairly decided a car bought in Mrs Y’s name and a wedding gift to her granddaughter were deprivations of her assets and wrongly included them as notional capital when calculating Mrs Y’s care fee contributions.
3. Mrs X says the Council’s inclusion of the car and wedding gift in Mrs Y’s capital has resulted in Mrs Y having to pay the full cost of her care. She wants the Council to remove the notional capital from the financial assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X, guidance on the administration of the Care Act 2014, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the process its officers have followed to make that decision. We cannot criticise a decision which a council has properly made solely because someone disagrees with it. So I have considered the way in which the Council has made its decisions regarding Mrs Y’s finances.
8. Mrs X has PoA to control Mrs Y’s finances as Mrs Y is lacking the capacity to do so herself. Mrs X sought care provision for Mrs Y. In October 2022, officers discussed Mrs Y’s finances with Mrs X and gathered information. They determined Mrs Y had about £40,700 in capital. That amount would have meant Mrs Y would have paid her care fees in full, until the sum fell to the threshold of £23,250 at which point the Council would have started to contribute.
9. Mrs Y’s capital had reduced from £40,700 to about £13,000 by December 2022. The Council determined about £1,800 of the expenditure was for reasonable household purchases. A further £3,000 spent on a new boiler was determined not to be Mrs Y’s responsibility, because she rents her property, so the boiler was for her landlord to fund. Mrs X also scrapped Mrs Y’s car and spent £16,649 on a replacement, registered in Mrs Y’s ownership. Mrs X says the car’s primary use is to allow her to provide transport to her mother. Mrs X also gifted a further £2,500 on Mrs Y’s behalf to Mrs Y’s granddaughter as a wedding gift.
10. The Council decided the car purchase and wedding gift were deprivations of Mrs Y’s capital and would be counted as notional capital, money which should have been available to Mrs Y to fund her care. In making its decision, the Council noted Mrs X had discussed Mrs Y’s finances in October 2022 in the context of her care provision, before the car was bought and the gift given. Officers applied the relevant government guidance on how they should administer the Care Act 2014. They determined that when Mrs Y’s capital was spent on the car and gift, Mrs X had reasonable expectations that Mrs Y had a need for care and support services, and knew that Mrs Y would need to contribute to the cost of her eligible care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here in the way it reached that decision to warrant us investigating. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. As a holder of PoA for Mrs Y’s property and finances, Mrs X agreed to take on an important formal duty to act in Mrs Y’s financial best interests at all times. It was for Mrs X to seek advice, from the Council or a body such as the Office of the Public Guardian, before making the gift and purchase subsequently determined to be deprivations of Mrs Y’s assets. This would have informed Mrs X on how she might best protect Mrs Y’s financial position and fulfil her attorney role.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman