Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, brought on behalf of the late Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision to not disregard Mrs Y’s house when calculating her finances for care charging purposes. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Even if Mrs X’s complaint had not been late, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have warranted an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the late Mrs Y’s daughter. Mrs Y lived in her own property until moving into a care home over five years ago. One of Mrs Y’s daughters, Ms Z, was at the property for about eight months before Mrs Y went into the care home. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. wrongly overturned its initial decision to disregard Mrs Y’s property from her assets when determining her finances for care cost purposes;
2. changed its disregard decision without further consultation with the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s initial decision was to disregard Mrs Y’s property within its assessment of her finances. It first considered Ms Z was a qualifying occupant under the Care Act 2014, as someone who was a family member over 60 years of age at the time and ordinarily resident there for a sufficient period. Officers considered this gave grounds for Mrs Y’s property to be disregarded from the financial assessment.
7. The Council changed that decision and included the property in Mrs Y’s assets in summer 2019. Mrs X knew of the Council’s change of position in early June 2019. Mrs X pursued the matter with the Council, contacting officers several times, including twice in late 2020. She submitted a formal complaint to the Council about the matter in August 2023, by which time Mrs Y had died. After receiving the Council’s final response to her complaint in May 2024, Mrs X raised her complaint with us in May 2025.
8. We expect people to complain to us about something they consider a council has done wrong within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of. The contacts Mrs X had with the Council show she knew about the Council’s change to its property disregard decision in June 2019 and has complained to us about the issue almost six years later. Therefore, the complaint is late.
9. Mrs X could have brought her complaint to us sooner and within 12 months of the Council’s decision. We may apply discretion to consider a late complaint but only if we are satisfied there are good reasons to do so. There are no such good reasons here. Even if Mrs X’s complaint had not been late, we would not have investigated.
10. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we would consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We could not replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
11. The Council accepts its initial decision to disregard Mrs Y’s property was incorrect. Officers had not gathered and considered sufficient evidence about Ms Z’s time at the property and whether they should treat her as ordinarily an occupant there when making its decision. Mrs X is correct that the Council overturned its decision before involvement of the family. However, when challenged the Council asked Mrs X for information to support the family’s position that Ms Z had been ordinarily resident at Mrs Y’s property.
12. For the purposes of a property disregard, the meaning of ‘occupy’ is not closely defined in law or the guidance. If it is not clear if a person is an occupant of a property, the local authority should make factual inquiries by gathering and weighing up relevant evidence to reach a decision. Officers considered the information they received about Ms Z’s occupancy of Mrs Y’s property to reconsider their position. They concluded it did not demonstrate Ms Z’s presence at Mrs Y’s property met the criteria for a mandatory property disregard. Officers decided the evidence did not demonstrate Mrs Y’s property was Ms Z’s main or only home or that she lived continuously at the property up to the date Mrs Y went into the care home.
13. Officers gathered and assessed relevant evidence when reaching their property disregard decision. There is not enough evidence of Council fault here which would have altered that decision to warrant us investigating this late complaint now, so we will not do so. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s final position and decision. But it would not be fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• it is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s property disregard decision to warrant us investigating now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman