Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to apply a 12-week property disregard when it completed her mother’s financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to apply a 12-week property disregard when it completed her mother’s financial assessment.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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. Miss X’s mother, Mrs Z, entered a care home under a respite care agreement in December 2023. Mrs Z paid for the full cost of her care placement. Miss X approached the Council in November 2024 asking it to complete a financial assessment for her mother.
6. The Council said the care home confirmed that Mrs Z was placed initially for two weeks. However, once the two-week period is ended, the placement is considered permanent and that the care home made the family aware of this at the time.
7. Miss X says the statutory guidance states councils must disregard the value of a person’s main home for 12 weeks when they first enter a care home as a permanent resident. Miss X says this applies to her mother as she is still under a short-term respite contract and because there was no formal change of status to a permanent resident. Therefore, she wants the Council to apply the 12-week property disregard from when she first approached the Council to assess her mother.
8. Respite care in nature is intended to be short term to give carers a break from their caring role. Mrs Z first entered the care home in December 2023 and has lived in the care home ever since. This means she has lived there continuously for nearly 18 months. Regardless of any formal contract being signed, it is evident Mrs Z is a permanent resident of the care home, and I do not agree with Miss X’s view that her mother is still in respite care.
9. Therefore, I am satisfied it was reasonable and appropriate for the Council to consider Mrs Z to have been a permanent resident of the care home since 2023. Given this, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to apply a 12-week property disregard in Mrs Z’s financial assessment.
10. The Council could have applied a 12-week property disregard in December 2023, had Miss X asked the Council to complete a financial assessment then. I have considered whether this would have affected Mrs Z’s charges. I am satisfied this would have had no impact as Mrs Z had other capital above the maximum threshold of £23,250. Therefore, Mrs Z would still have been responsible for paying for the full cost of her care placement from December 2023 onwards.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman