Summary: Mrs Y, acting for Mrs X, complained about the outcome of the financial assessment carried out by the Council for Mrs X. She also complained about the Council’s failure to apply for a deprivation of liberty in the community order for Mrs X. Since Mrs Y came to us, the Council has decided to apply for the court order and to disregard Mrs X’s property until the order is issued. We have ended this investigation as there is nothing else we could achieve for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y, acting as a court appointed deputy for Mrs X, complained the Council failed to:
• consider all the facts and circumstances when deciding not to disregard Mrs X’s house from her financial assessment;
• properly exercise its discretion when deciding whether to disregard the house;
• apply for a Deprivation of Liberty in the community setting order for Mrs X, which was needed to settle if her care arrangements were permanent.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

7. Mrs X has needs for 24-hour support stemming from her advanced age. Before summer 2024 Mrs X lived in her own property with one of her sons (Mr A). She was receiving a few hours of domiciliary care per day.
8. In June 2024 Mrs X moved in with her other son (Mr B) and his family. Her package of care support continued in the new place.

Financial assessment

9. In August 2024 the Council carried out a financial assessment for Mrs X.
10. At the end of September 2024 the Council decided to include the value of Mrs X’s property when calculating care charges due from her. When making its decision the Council considered a property disregard did not apply to Mrs X’s situation as:
• Mrs X did not move into a care home, so she would not qualify for a mandatory property disregard;
• Mrs X’s move was not temporary, so a discretionary disregard could not be considered for her.
11. In mid-October Mrs Y complained about the Council’s decision to include Mrs X’s property in her financial assessment. Mrs Y said the Council had failed to properly consider why Mrs X lived at Mr B’s property and the impact of the Council’s decision on Mr A. Mrs Y said that Mrs X’s stay with Mr B’s family was not secure and she was at risk of becoming homeless if her property was sold.
12. In mid-November 2024 the Council re-considered its decision about Mrs X’s financial assessment and concluded the previous decision was right. The Council confirmed its position that Mrs X’s move to Mr B was permanent rather than temporary. The Council stressed Mrs Y’s reference to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance would only be relevant if Mrs X had moved to a care home.
13. In December Mrs Y told the Council the court’s deputyship order prevents sale or leasing of Mrs X’s property without a specific court order. To make such an order the court would need to be satisfied there were no circumstances under which Mrs X could return to her house. Mrs Y asked the Council to provide her with a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) in the community order issued for Mrs X.
14. Ten days later Mrs Y complained about the Council’s failure to apply for a DoL order for Mrs X after it had found out that she lived at Mr B’s house.
15. In mid-February 2025 the Council carried out a review of Mrs X’s care needs assessment. It confirmed she did not have mental capacity to decide about her care and support arrangements. Mr B and his wife stated Mrs X was staying with them temporarily and they were reviewing this arrangement each month, as Mrs X had regularly stated she wished to return to her own house.
16. At the beginning of March 2025 the Council told Mrs Y it would be applying for a DoL order for Mrs X. As during this process it would not be possible to sell Mrs X’s property the Council decided to disregard her property from December 2024 until the DoL order was granted.
17. Mrs Y asked the Council to disregard Mrs X’s property from the financial assessment from the date Mrs X moved in with Mr B and his family. Mrs Y told me the Council had now agreed to do this.

Analysis

18. When bringing her complaint Mrs Y asked the Council to review Mrs X’s financial assessment in relation to the treatment of her property. She also said the Council should have applied for the DoL order for Mrs X.
19. The Council is now applying for the DoL court order and has decided to disregard the value of Mrs X’s property in the financial assessment until the order is obtained. There is nothing else we could achieve for Mrs X by investigating her complaint.

Back to top

Decision

20. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has taken action which has resolved the outstanding issues and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman