Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an adult social care financial assessment and the Council’s decision that his mother had deprived herself of assets to avoid care costs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s financial assessment which concluded she had deprived herself of assets to avoid care costs. Mr X also complains about the unprofessional conduct of the Council Financial Assessor during calls. He wants us to:

• overturn the Council’s decision about monetary gifts Mrs Y has made to him and his sibling;
• insist the Council records all calls between service users and financial assessors; and,
• make the Council approach financial assessments of this type with the mindset that gifting of money is usually legitimate and not done with the intention of avoiding care costs.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils may consider a resident has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset, such as a property they own or money in savings, in order to reduce the charges they are asked to pay. Councils should consider whether deprivation has occurred, what its purpose was, and the timing of that deprivation. Having considered the facts, councils may decide to treat the resident as still owning that asset when assessing how much they should pay towards their care.
6. Mrs Y still lives in her own home and, until last year, received support from her family with some daily activities, including bathing, meal preparation, cleaning and getting ready for bed. Mrs Y’s daughter and Mr X’s partner provided the bulk of support to Mrs Y. In October 2023, Mrs Y gifted £50,000 to her daughter and a further £7,500 to Mr X in December 2023.
7. In February 2024, Mrs X suffered a fall which resulted in hospital admission. Shortly before her fall, Mrs Y’s daughter told Mr X and Mrs Y that she was no longer physically able to provide the level of support Mrs X needed.
8. Mr X asked the Council for help with caring for Mrs Y shortly after her discharge from hospital. As part of this, the Council completed a financial assessment to determine what, if any, contribution Mrs Y might need to make towards her care costs.
9. Mr X spoke to the Council Officer completing Mrs Y’s financial assessment on two occasions. He provided explanations and evidence for the monetary gifts his mother had made to him and his sister. The Council concluded some gifts, such as paying for a holiday for Mr X and his partner could be disregarded, and others, including the £50,000 and £7,500 gifts to Mr X and his sister should be included as notional capital when calculating what Mrs Y should pay for her care.
10. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision and the way in which the Council Officer had spoken to him when gathering information for the financial assessment. In its responses, the Council noted all the evidence it had considered before reaching its view on Mrs Y’s monetary gifts to her family.
11. The Council detailed:

• Mrs Y had been known to the Council since 2012 when she first applied for services and it completed a care needs assessment which included a financial assessment;
• File notes confirmed Mrs Y’s family was no longer able to manage her care needs between them;
• Acknowledgement that motivation for deprivation of assets had not solely been for the purpose of avoiding care charges;
• the Council officer had sought confirmation of their decision to include notional capital from their line manager and the Council’s Legal Team.

12. The Council was satisfied, following consideration of the evidence, that Mrs Y could have a reasonable expectation of her need for care and support at the point when she gifted funds to her children. The Council also explained it would have disregarded the £7,500 Mrs Y gave to Mr X had it been used to purchase a pre-paid funeral plan.
13. The Council also explained that it did not record calls in its Financial Assessment team. It therefore could not independently review the content of Mr X’s discussions with the Council Officer to determine whether or not their conduct had been appropriate.
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 has 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 complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
15. In this case, the Council properly considered the matter before arriving at its decision that some of the money Mrs Y had gifted constituted a deprivation of assets. There is clear evidence the Council considered the correct tests as set out in the care and support statutory guidance before it made its decision and that it has subsequently considered Mr X’s challenges to its decision through formal review by senior managers. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, we could not find fault in the decision itself.
16. Because we are not investigating this matter further, we also could not recommend the Council records calls in certain teams as Mr X has requested for the Council’s Financial Assessment team.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcomes he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman