Summary: Mrs X complained the Council decided her relative Mr Y was not entitled to financial assistance towards the cost of care. The Council followed charging rules about capital in Care and Support Statutory Guidance and so we did not uphold the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained for her relative Mr Y about the Council’s financial assessment for his care charge. She said the Council assessed Mr Y’s capital separately when the money in the savings account came from a joint bank account and should be split with his wife. Mrs X said Mr Y was previously eligible for funding and so the Council’s decision is unfair and caused a financial loss and avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) is statutory guidance which councils should normally follow. It says councils can charge people for care they provide and if there is a charge, this should follow national regulations on charging. I have summarised relevant paragraphs of CCSG below:
1. The financial limit sets out when a person can access local authority funding for care. The upper capital limit is £23,250. If a person has capital over the upper capital limit, a council may charge them the full cost of their care. When their capital falls below the upper limit, they are entitled to seek means-tested support from the authority. (Paragraphs 8.11 and 12)
2. Capital includes savings in an account. Capital normally belongs to the person in whose name it is held, the legal owner. Where the council disputes ownership, it should seek written evidence to prove ownership (Annex B, Paragraphs 6(g), 10 and 11.
6. CSSG goes on to give an example of a capital dispute about whether capital is joint or sole where an individual holds £14000 in an account in their own name and says that £3000 is set aside for a relative. As there is no trust or legal arrangement which would prevent the person from using the whole amount, the individual is treated as owning it all.

What happened

7. Mrs X manages Mr Y’s finances as his attorney. He has a savings account in his name only. In 2023, the Council carried out a financial assessment for the charge for his care. The financial assessment form wrongly stated the savings account was in Mr and Mrs Y’s joint names and so the Council divided the balance between them equally when calculating Mr Y’s care contribution. A note on the paperwork indicates the Council did not verify the savings account by asking for copies of statements. The outcome of the financial assessment was Mr X was entitled to council funding towards the cost of his care as he had capital below the upper threshold. Mr Y had a nil charge from August 2023.
8. In October 2024, the finance team wrote to Mrs X. The letter asked her to provide financial documents for Mr Y. The finance team completed a financial assessment for Mr Y. This noted Mr Y had a joint current account with Mrs Y and the savings account was in Mr Y’s sole name with a balance of £34000.
9. The finance team wrote to Mrs X saying Mr Y was not entitled to financial support from the Council due to his savings being above the upper capital limit.
10. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council refused the appeal. The Council said this was because clients were assessed as individuals. The Council went on to explain:
• Mr Y was the only person with legal right to the funds in the savings account and so it had treated the capital as sole and not joint capital.
• So it regarded Mr Y as a self-funder (meaning he needed to arrange and pay for his own care).
• Mr X should have been treated as a self-funder from August 2023, but it had not backdated this decision.
11. The Council told us:
• It made an error in including the savings as joint capital and when it realised what had happened, took corrective action.
• Mr Y’s financial assessment was not backdated until 19 October 2024. This meant he received free home care between August 2023 and October 2024.

Findings

12. The Council should have verified Mr Y’s savings account was in his sole name in 2023. He suffered no injustice from the Council’s failure to check as he received free home care for over a year.
13. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council, but it has applied CSSG paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 in the financial assessment of 2024 and appeal. There is no legal document giving Mrs Y (or any other person) any right to the money in the savings account and so there is no fault in the Council deciding Mr Y’s capital was above the upper capital limit.

Back to top

Decision

14. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman