Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of the 12-week property disregard in Mrs Y’s case. There is insufficient evidence of Mrs Y or her family having experienced a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not provide his mother (Mrs Y) 12 weeks’ care free of charge when she moved into a residential home. Mr X said this meant the family were under pressure to sell Mrs Y’s property sooner than they were led to believe they would have to. He wanted the Council to waive 12 weeks’ care fees.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Property disregards are applied in certain circumstances, to allow people the time to sell their property to release funds to pay for their care. A property disregard means the value of the person’s property is not taken into account when calculating the person’s capital as part of their financial assessment. Any other capital is still assessed at this time, and where a person still has capital of over £23,250 when their property has been disregarded, they must pay the full cost of their care.
6. Mr X says the Council told him Mrs Y’s care would be free of charge for 12 weeks when she moved into residential care, due to the 12-week property disregard.
7. Applying a 12-week property disregard does not necessarily mean care will be free of charge. When a property is disregarded, the person’s remaining capital is still assessed as normal to determine what their contribution to their care charges will be. As Mrs Y had funds of over £23,250 (even when disregarding her property), she was assessed as needing to pay the full cost of her care for the 12 weeks in question.
8. It is not proportionate for us to investigate the matter further to determine whether a Council officer specifically said care would be free, or whether the Council’s explanation of the 12-week disregard was unclear. While, if this was the case, this may have raised the family’s expectations, it does not mean Mrs Y was wrongly charged for the 12 weeks’ care. But for any fault in the clarity of the Council’s communication, Mrs Y would still have been a full cost-payer and it would not therefore follow that the 12 weeks’ charges should be waived, as Mr X seeks. The family’s raised expectations alone would not amount to a significant injustice that would warrant further investigation or a remedy in their own right.
9. It is also not proportionate to investigate further to determine whether the property disregard was applied to Mrs Y’s financial assessment. This is because she would have been a full cost-payer, whether her property was disregarded or not, due to her other capital.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence Mrs Y or her family were caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman