Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband and its decision that there has been a deprivation of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband and its decision that there has been a deprivation of assets. She considers the Council has inappropriately taken into account capital which should be disregarded.

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 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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In October 2022, Mrs X and her husband, Mr Z, took out a life assured investment bond of over £100,000 with a life insurance and asset management company. Mrs X told the Council they did this because they wanted to consolidate their funds to enable them to be easily managed. Mrs X said she sought the advice of a financial advisor and was acting on their advice.
7. The Council confirmed that the capital held in the life assured investment can be disregarded. However, the Council can consider the timing and circumstances of when the investment was made to decide it was satisfied there had been a deprivation of assets. Deprivation of assets means a person has intentionally deprived or decreased their overall assets to reduce the amount they are charged towards their care. If so, the Council can take account of the capital when completing its financial assessment to determine how much a person needs to contribute towards the cost of their care.
8. Annex E of the care and support statutory guidance says councils must consider the following before deciding whether deprivation for the purpose of avoiding care and support charges has 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?
9. In its complaint response, the Council noted all the evidence it considered before reaching its view on whether Mr Z, at the time of taking out the life assurance investment bond, would have had a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support.
10. The Council detailed:
• Mr Z had been known to the Council since 2016 as he was referred for an occupational therapy assessment due to difficulties accessing the shower.
• Mrs X asked the Council in 2017 to register her as Mr Z’s carer. Mrs X also asked the Council to support Mr Z with attending a day centre.
• Mr Z had been diagnosed with dementia in 2019, which was a progressive disease. The Council noted that at the time Mr Z transferred the funds, he was three years into his diagnosis.
• Mrs X had told the Council they had been paying for a private carer to help Mr Z with showering.
11. The Council was satisfied, following consideration of the evidence, that Mr Z and Mrs X could have a reasonable expectation of Mr Z’s need for care and support at the point they transferred the funds into the life assured investment bond.
12. The Council has also considered Mrs X’s reasons for why they transferred the funds. The Council raised questions about how a life assurance bond was the best wat to achieve their aim of easier management of finances. The Council noted the simplest option would have been to move all the capital into a bank account to enable easy access.
13. Finally, the Council detailed that Mr Z would have had a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of his eligible care needs because information about charging and the financial limits had been given to them in 2017. Therefore, they were aware that if an individual had above the capital limit of £23,250, then they would be responsible for the full cost of their care.
14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
15. In this case, the Council properly considered the matter before arriving at its decision that there has been a deprivation of assets. There is clear evidence the Council considered the correct test as set out in the care and support statutory guidance before it made its decision. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, we could not find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman