Summary: Mr Y complained the Council delayed removing a Land Registry restriction from his late mother’s property after he had paid outstanding care debt in October 2024. He said the delay now means he is liable for new stamp duty charges on the property which came into effect in April 2025. The Council was at fault for delaying the removal of the restriction on the property causing uncertainty and frustration to Mr Y, the Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council delayed removing a HM Land Registry restriction placed on his late mother’s property after he paid her outstanding care debt. He said the delay has caused him to be liable for new stamp duty charges that came into effect in April 2025, when trying to purchase the property. He said this has caused distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

Stamp duty

7. New rate thresholds for stamp duty charges came into effect on the 1 April 2025.

Relevant Law and Guidance

8. Section 69 of the Care Act 2014 provides for recovery of debts arising from care fees. A Council can recover any sum within six years from the date that the amount became due to the Council.
9. Section 34 of the Care Act 2014 sets out the requirements for a legal charge to secure a debt owed to the Council.

The Council’s deferred payment policy

10. Section 8 states the Council should have adequate security in place when deciding whether a person is entitled to a deferred payment plan. Where a person owns a property, this security will be in the form of a legal charge registered with HM Land Registry.
11. Section 16 of the Council’s deferred payment policy states a deferred payment will automatically come to an end on a person’s death. Any debt can be paid either from the estate or a third party, if the decision is to settle the debt rather than sell the deceased’s property. Once the debt is recovered the Councils Social Care Business Support and Finance Team will commence the process to remove the charge from the customers title and HM Land Registry.

What happened

12. Prior to her death, the Council imposed a legal charge (the ‘restriction’) on Mr Y’s mother’s property with HM Land Registry to secure payment for her care, which was subject to a deferred payment plan.
13. After his mother’s death, Mr Y paid the outstanding care bill in October 2024 and was advised that steps would be taken to remove the restriction on Mrs X’s property.
14. Mr Y was living in his mother’s property. Following her death, Mrs Y left her property to Mr Y and his brother. After paying his mother’s outstanding care debt, Mr Y instructed a solicitor to start the process for buying his brother’s share of the property.
15. Records show:
• the Council signed forms to remove the restriction at the start of December 2024;
• Mr Y’s solicitor contacted the Council in February 2025 and asked it why it had not yet applied to have the restriction removed from the property; and
• following contact by Mr Y’s solicitor, internal emails were sent chasing the progress of the application after the relevant documents had been sent for internal review back in October 2024.
16. In February 2025, the Council completed its internal review and made an application to the HM Land Registry to discharge the restriction. In April 2025, HM Land Registry informed the Council it had incorrectly executed the discharge and needed to resubmit documents.
17. In late April Mr Y’s solicitor requested an update from the Council on the restriction removal. The discharge was completed the following day.
18. Mr Y complained to the Council. He said he was reassured in October 2024, after paying the debt, the restriction on the property would be lifted immediately, instead the process had taken seven months to resolve.
19. In its response the Council apologised for the delay in removing the restriction. It said after the debt had been cleared in October 2024 its legal teams had needed to review the case and ensure all legal and procedural checks were completed. It also apologised for poor communication and recognised this would have added to Mr Y’s frustration.
20. Mr Y remained unhappy with the Council’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He said that due to the delays in removing the restriction he was now liable to pay new property stamp duty fees that had come into effect in April 2025.

Analysis

21. After paying the outstanding care debt for his late mother, Mr Y was told the process to discharge the restriction would begin. Whilst the Council’s deferred payment policy does not state how long this process should take, I have not seen any good reason why it took from December 2024, when the discharge forms were signed and completed, until February 2025 for an application for removal to be made to HM Land Registry. The Council has acknowledged there was a delay in removing the restriction. The delay of two months to remove the restriction from the property was fault causing Mr Y uncertainty and frustration. However, I cannot say, even on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Y would have completed the process of buying his late mother’s property before the new stamp duty charges in April 2025, had the delay not occurred.
22. The application to remove the charge with HM Land Registry was also made incorrectly by the Council, meaning the condition was not discharged until April 2025. The processing time by the HM Land Registry could not be controlled by the Council. Further it acted quickly to resend documents when it was notified of its administrative errors, and the restriction was removed shortly after.

Back to top

Action

23. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mr Y to acknowledge the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault by delays in removing a land registry restriction, causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman