Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that his father can return home and about the outcome of his father’s financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that his father can return home. He says it is not safe to meet his father’s needs. He also complains about the outcome of his father’s financial assessment.

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))

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. Mr X’s father, Mr Z, was staying in a care home. Initially, the Council’s position was that Mr Z expressed his wish to go home and had mental capacity to make decisions about his health and welfare. Mr X disagreed and said Mr Z did not have capacity.
6. The Council completed a mental capacity assessment in February 2025. The outcome of this assessment was that Mr Z lacked capacity to make decisions about his long-term care placement. The Council decided that it was in Mr Z’s best interest to remain in the care home as it was meeting his eligible care and support needs.
7. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council appropriately completed a mental capacity assessment to determine Mr Z’s capacity to make decisions about his care and support when it was clear there was a dispute regarding his capacity. The Council has now found Mr Z lacks capacity, and a decision has been made for him to continue to receive care and support in a care home.
8. The Council completed a financial assessment in April 2025. I have reviewed the assessment and can see the Council has disregarded appropriate expenses, including disregarding 50% of Mr Z’s occupational pension to account for his wife’s maintenance, in line with the statutory guidance.
9. Mr X said his father cannot afford the assessed contributions as the Council has not taken into account the fact he is repaying debt. There is no requirement for the Council to disregard loan repayments as an expense in a financial assessment. However, councils have discretion to consider these expenses as the overarching principle of the Care Act 2014 is that people should only be required to pay what they can afford. Therefore, councils should not charge a person more than it is reasonably practicable for them to pay.
10. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had been provided with some information about Mr Z’s debts. However, it said it didn’t have any details about the repayment agreement reached.
11. The Council confirmed if Mr X could provide details of Mr Z’s loans, agreed repayment plan, and bank statements to confirm the payments are being paid, it could review and consider whether to exercise discretion to make an allowance for the debt repayment within the financial assessment.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council has not got sufficient information to consider exercising its discretion to make allowances for the debt repayment. It is open to Mr X to provide the information needed to the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman