Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include a 50% share in a property as capital when completing a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complains about the way the Council assessed how much her father needed to pay for residential care fees. She says the Council included a 50% share in a property her father owned as capital but did not properly consider the impact on the value as the other 50% share was held in trust. Mrs C says this caused her and her family avoidable distress due to having to deal with the issue at a difficult time. To put things right she wants the Council to disregard the property from her father’s financial assessment as it has nil monetary value.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs C’s father, Mr X, has a lasting power of attorney (LPA) in place which allows
   Mrs C and other family members to make decisions on his behalf regarding his property and financial affairs.
6. Mrs C complained to the Council via her representative about the way the Council had financially assessed her father. The complaint said the 50% share of the property included as capital in the financial assessment had no monetary value. The view was the other 50% share was held in trust which allowed the beneficiaries to occupy the property for up to125 years. The complaint said there would be no willing buyer due to the restrictions of the trust.
7. The Care Act 2014 Care and Support Statutory Guidance says, “The current market value will be the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller… Where the value of a property is disputed, the aim should be to resolve this as quickly as possible. [Councils] should try to obtain an independent valuation of the person’s beneficial share of the property…”
8. Due to the dispute about the value of the property the Council obtained an independent valuation of the property which made clear Mr X owned a 50% share. The Council instructions also included information to confirm the other 50% share was held in trust. Following this valuation the Council included the value of the asset in Mr X’s financial assessment as capital.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs C and her family want.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman