Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for care and a deprivation of assets decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not adequately inform her and her relative, Mr Y, about potential charges for care and about a decision that Mr Y deprived himself of assets to avoid care costs. She says the decision has caused distress and financial loss. She wants the Council to reconsider the deprivation of assets decision and contribute towards Mr Y’s outstanding 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils may consider a person 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 person as still owning that asset when assessing how much they should pay towards their care.
6. Mr Y moved into the Council’s area in 2018. He had existing health conditions at this time.
7. In 2019 and 2021, Mr Y was assessed by the Council’s Adult Social Care service. In 2021, Mr Y told the Council he had previously owned a property but had sold it in 2020. He said he intended to share the proceeds from the sale with his family.
8. The Council assessed Mr Y’s care needs again in November 2022 and Mr Y started receiving a package of care. The Council says it discussed care charges with Mr Y at this time and left financial information and assessment forms for Mr Y and the family to complete and return to the Council.
9. By April 2023, Ms X and Mr Y had not provided the Council with any financial information. The Council decided he was liable for the full cost of his care. Ms X returned the financial assessment forms in July 2023.
10. The Council considered the information provided by Ms X and Mr Y and information held in its care records. It also sought advice from its legal team. It decided that, at the time Mr Y distributed the proceeds from his house sale, he would have had a reasonable expectation of a future need for care and support. It decided that the decision to proceeds with his family was a deprivation of assets to reduce his liability to pay for care. It therefore included the proceeds from the house sale in Mr Y’s financial assessment as notional capital, assessing him as liable for the full cost of his care.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the Council's decision, but there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The Council has considered the information provided by Ms X and Mr Y, its own records and sought legal advice before reaching its decision. It has explained to Ms X how it has reached its decision and invited her to provide additional evidence regarding when the sale proceeds were distributed, if she disputes the Council’s position. The Council told us it has not received any further evidence from Ms X since its complaint response.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms 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