Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that his relative, Ms Y, deprived herself of assets in order to reduce care charges. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that his relative, Ms Y, deprived herself of assets for the purpose of reducing care charges. He says the financial assessment process lacked transparency and the decision meant there was little chance of Ms Y ever receiving funding for her care. He wants the Council to change its decision.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint responses, the Council said as part of its decision making it had considered Ms Y’s circumstances at the time she made the financial gifts. It had also considered the purpose of the asset disposal and the timing. In Ms Y’s case, it said the timing of the transactions was within days of her discharge from hospital and after a discussion held with a Council officer about possible long-term care and support and the financial implications of this.
7. It said at the time of the disposal, it was reasonable for her to anticipate that there might be an ongoing need for care and support. Its position was that she had deliberately deprived herself of assets and so it would consider the amount gifted as notional capital for the purpose of the financial assessment.
8. 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.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with the decision, the Council appears to have considered all relevant factors, and the decision-making process is in line with the statutory guidance. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr 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