Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of assets. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided his wife, Mrs X had deprived herself of assets for the purpose of reducing her care fees. Mr X states the Council had failed to apply the law properly when considering the case. He said the Council’s decision had caused distress. He wants the Council to review its decision and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X provided informal care to Mrs X. Her health began to deteriorate, and she was admitted to hospital at the start of 2022. Later that year she moved into a care home.
7. When the Council completed a financial assessment to assess the amount Mrs X could contribute towards her care, it found Mr X had made a significant payment from his joint account with Mrs X, to his son, Mr Y in November 2021. The Council decided this was a deliberate deprivation of assets.
8. Mr X and Mr Y appealed; they stated the transaction was repayment of a loan. They stated Mrs X was not aware of the repayment therefore she could not have deliberately deprived herself of the asset.
9. The Council considered the appeal through its two-stage process. That included review by an independent panel. The Panel considered information about Mrs X’s health needs, witness statements from family members, the reasons for the loan, the date the loan was made and the timing and reasoning for the repayment of the loan. The Council’s view remained there was no evidence Mr Y had loaned Mr X the money. It decided the payment made by Mr X to Mr Y was out of character and given the timing was a deliberate deprivation of assets.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. Mr X and Mr Y state the Council has not followed the statutory guidance, as Mrs X was not aware of the payment, therefore has not intentionally deprived herself. The Council has confirmed Mr X has Lasting Power of Attorney for Mrs X for financial affairs. That means, she has agreed for him to make financial decisions on her behalf. Additionally, as the money was from a joint account, we are satisfied any decision made on that account (by either party); is done with the agreement of the other party.
12. Given the above, I am satisfied the Council has applied the statutory guidance and considered all relevant information when deciding whether the payment was a deprivation of asset. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. If Mr X and Mr Y believe the Council is interpreting the legislation incorrectly, that would be a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman