Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of capital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision she had deprived herself of capital. She also said the Council:
• incorrectly told her that she would not be charged for her care, and
• delayed in completing the financial assessment.
2. She said if she had known she would have had to pay for the care, she would have arranged an alternative care package. Mrs X wants the Council to write of the outstanding care invoice, accept it did not complete the financial assessment correctly and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Deprivation of capital is when someone knowingly reduces the value of an asset they hold for financial benefit. The law says a council can treat someone as still having the capital if it finds that person has deprived themselves of it for the purpose of decreasing the amount they may be liable to pay towards the cost of meeting their needs for care and support.
8. Mrs X sold her property and gave the capital from that sale to her son (Mr Y) to build an annex at his property. The Council decided that amounted to a deprivation of capital and that Mrs X was liable for her care costs. Mrs X disagreed with that decision and complained.
9. When making a decision about deprivation of capital, the Council must consider:
• Could the person have had a reasonable expectation of needing care?
• Did the person have a reasonable expectation of the need to contribute towards the costs of that care?
• Was avoiding care costs a significant motivation in the timing of disposing of the asset?
10. The Council’s complaint response demonstrates it considered these factors. It said Mrs X had a long-term health condition and had needed care and support before selling her property. It said she would have known that her income and capital, would have affected the amount she would need to contribute to care costs. It said she had invested significantly in Mr Y's property, and that this could be evidenced through getting a Trust Deed. In the absence of this, the Council was satisfied that the capital Mrs X had given Mr Y was a gift.
11. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision we will not investigate. The Council has provided cogent reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council incorrectly said she would not have to pay for her care, or around delays in it completing the financial assessment. Regardless of any advice initially provided, the Council assessed Mrs X as having the financial means to contribute. I appreciate Mrs X said she would have arranged a different package of care; however, we can’t speculate on what might have happened. If Mrs X felt the Council’s assessment of her needs was incorrect, she could have addressed that with the Council at the time and reduced the package of care. The Council has invoiced for the care provided. It is entitled to do that. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman