Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's decision not to disregard the value of her mother’s property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not applied a mandatory property disregard when assessing how much her mother, Mrs Y, had to pay towards her adult social care costs after her father died.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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))

5. We can 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. The Council carried out a financial assessment to assess how much Mrs Y should pay towards her adult social care after Mr Y died. It decided the value of her former home should be taken into account and therefore she had to pay the full cost of her care.
9. Ms X argued that the value of the home should not be taken into account because her partner, Mr Z, had been living there since March 2020, which was before Mrs Y moved into residential care.
10. The Council considered whether to apply a mandatory disregard, but decided the criteria was not met because Mr Z was not a “qualifying relative”. This was because he was not the unmarried partner of Ms X because, based on the information Ms X had provided, he had never lived with Ms X. It also declined to apply a discretionary disregard but did offer a deferred payment arrangement (DPA). A DPA is a loan that covers the cost of the care fees and would usually be repayable 90 days after Mrs Y’s death. The Council said, in this case, it would agree the DPA could remain in place until either Mr W moved out of the property or his death, whichever was earlier. Ms X declined the DPA.
11. The Council considered two appeals but upheld the original decision not to apply a disregard. It declined to carry out a third appeal. It signposted Ms X to us in October 2022 and warned her about our 12 month time limit for investigating.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Ms X complained in April 2025 about events in 2022, so the complaint is late. She said her physical and mental health prevented her from complaining earlier. Having considered what she said, I am not persuaded she could not have complained to us earlier.
13. Even if we agreed she could not have complained earlier we would not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify doing so.
14. I have seen the letters the Council sent with the outcome of the appeals. These set out how the Council considered the decision and show it considered all relevant factors and explained the reasons for its decision. In addition, it offered a DPA as a practical solution that would have meant Mr Z could continue to live in Mr and Mrs Y’s former home for his lifetime.
15. Unless we find fault in the way the Council made its decision, we cannot comment on the decision reached. For the reasons set out above, there is insufficient fault to justify investigating so we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is later and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman