Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to seek to recover care costs from him and its decision that he had deprived himself of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to seek to recover costs for his care and support and its decision he had deprived himself of assets. He says that the Council failed to reassess his care and support needs in line with his financial capabilities when his care requirements changed in April 2023.

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 February 2023, Mr X decided it was in his best interest to move into sheltered housing. Mr X decided to transfer his share in a property he owned into the name of his wife. The shares were transferred in May 2023.
7. When making a complaint, Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, admitted that at the time of the transfer, Mr X was aware that he could no longer fully care for himself and he needed ongoing assisted living.
8. Councils may consider a resident has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset, such as a property they own, to reduce the charges they are asked to pay. Having considered the facts, the Council may decide to treat the resident as still owning that asset when assessing how much they should pay towards their care.
9. Annex E of the care and support statutory guidance notes the council should consider the following before deciding whether deprivation for the purpose of avoiding care and support charges has occurred:

a) 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?

(b) did the person have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs?

10. 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 a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. In this case, the Council appropriately considered the timing of the transfer and whether Mr X had a reasonable expectation that he would need to pay for care when the transfer took place. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because the Council appropriately considered the relevant test before making its decision that deprivation of assets has occurred.
12. Mrs X says the Council should have reassessed Mr X’s financial and care needs when his condition worsened. However, this would not have impacted the Council’s consideration as to whether deprivation of assets have occurred because the consideration is whether Mr X had a reasonable expectation of needing care and support, and needing to pay for the care and support, at the time the asset or capital was disposed of.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman