Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it altered the residential care status of Mrs S to self-funder.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council’s decision to withdraw funding abruptly and treat her mother Mrs S as a self-funder created a crisis which threatened Mrs S’s continuity of care.

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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
7. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.
8. The financial limit, known as the ‘upper capital limit’, exists for the purposes of the financial assessment. This sets out at what point a person can get council support to meet their eligible needs. People who have over the upper capital limit must pay the full cost of their residential care home fees. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees. Where a person’s resources are below the lower capital limit they will not need to contribute to the cost of their care and support from their capital.
9. If a person chooses to go into a home that costs more than the personal budget, and the council can show that it can meet the person's needs in a less expensive home within the personal budget, it can still arrange a place at the home if: the person can find someone else (a 'third party') to pay the top-up; or the resident has entered a deferred payment scheme with the council and is willing to pay the top-up fee themself.
10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves.
11. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.
12. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions.

13. A deferred payment agreement allows an individual to defer the cost of meeting their care needs in a care home. It can help people delay the need to sell their home. The agreement can last until death but usually act as a ‘bridging loan’ to give time and flexibility to sell their home. The Care and Statutory Support guidance says “If a local authority identifies someone who may benefit from or be eligible for a DPA or a person approaches them for information, the local authority must tell them about the DPA scheme and how it works”.

What happened

14. Mrs S lacks capacity to manage her own financial affairs. Her daughter Ms X is her Court of Protection-appointed Deputy. The Deputyship order (2018) says the deputy must not sell or otherwise dispose of any property in which (Mrs S) has an interest.
15. Since 2017 Mrs S has lived in a care home. Initially her care was funded by the Council as her husband remained resident in the family home. Once he died in 2018 Mrs S became liable for the full cost of her care in August 2018 as the value of the property was included in her financial assessment. The Council says it was unaware of Mr S’s death until later and the assessment was calculated retrospectively in January 2019.
16. In January 2019 the Council contacted Ms X about a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA). The Council says, “This arrangement would have allowed the Council to secure a charge against the property and defer part of the payments until the property was sold”. Ms X declined the offer of a DPA. Mrs S therefore was charged the full cost of her placement because the capital value of her property placed her above the financial threshold for local authority funding. The full cost of the placement was less than Mrs S would have paid as a self-funding resident
17. In 2024 and 2025 Ms X raised some queries about the increase in fees and also requested that the Council waive the third-party top-up fees which were payable in this case. The Council says that Ms X withheld some of the assessed contribution at the time she made the queries. The Council says it reviewed the funding arrangements and “it became apparent that Mrs S’s financial circumstances placed her above the capital threshold for Local Authority funding, and that she should have been meeting the full cost of her care as a self-funder”.
18. The Council says, “The review identified that (Mrs S) had continued to receive Local Authority funding at standard rates beyond the point at which she met the criteria for self-funding. In line with Care Act 2014 guidance, where an individual’s capital exceeds £23,250 and there is no active Deferred Payment Agreement in place, the Local Authority is not responsible for funding ongoing care. In this case, a Deputy was in place to manage (Mrs S’s) financial affairs and a Deferred Payment Agreement had not been pursued”.
19. In June 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X to say it would be withdrawing funding from the placement and she would need to arrange payment direct with the care provider. It said at this point the outstanding debt was for £15,689. It said “If this debt is not satisfied in full, this will result in the case being passed to the Council’s enforcement team. One form of enforcement taken may be that a legal charge is placed on (Mrs S)’s property at His Majesty’s Land Registry. Thereafter, the Council may apply for an Order that the property be sold in order to satisfy any registered legal charge.”
20. Ms X wrote to the Council. She said she had never refused payment but only queried the basis for its calculations. She said she was willing to pay the outstanding amount in full if the Council agreed to rescind its decision to withdraw funding, continue to commission her mother’s care rather than impose self-funding rates she could not afford, and recognise that the terms of the Deputyship order forbade her from selling the property during her mother’s lifetime.
21. The adult care services manager wrote to Ms X again. She said after seeking legal advice the Council intended to proceed with the withdrawal of funding. She said “This decision has been made following formal legal advice and is in accordance with Council policy, which states that funding should cease upon the appointment of a Court of Protection Deputy.” She said the Council considered it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the Court of Protection to vary the order and allow the sale of the property as Mrs S would not return to it.
22. Ms X wrote again. She queried the legality of a blanket policy which said the funding should cease when a deputy was appointed. She said Mrs S had no private means to fund her placement at the self-funding rate and therefore the Council’s actions raised safeguarding concerns. She confirmed she had paid the outstanding amount requested.
23. Ms X formally complained to the Council about its actions. Her MP also complained to the Council in August 2025.
24. The Council’s solicitor replied to the MP. He said he had explained to Ms X that as the Court would have taken into account that she was a fit and proper person to manage Mrs S’s affairs, it was “not unreasonable for a local authority to take the view that there is no need for it to get involved in the management of a person who lacks the mental capacity to manage their own financial affairs”. He said he had also explained that “the former funding arrangement, by which a financial advantage was received of getting care home fees at local authority rates, rather than at self-funder rates, should have been brought to an end long before 18 July 2025”.
25. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council should acknowledge her position as Deputy and the restrictions on the sale of her mother’s property. She said she had been caused considerable stress at the prospect that Mrs S might be evicted. She said there had never been any need to make a deferred payment agreement as there was sufficient money available to pay the fees. Her concern was the abrupt way in which the Council had brought the arrangement to an end.
26. The Council says contrary to its earlier letter to Ms X, there is no policy wording which says that funding should cease upon the appointment of a Court of Protection Deputy. However, it says this reflects standard practice, as once a Deputy is appointed, the resident has someone authorised to manage their finances and make care arrangements on their behalf. It says “For this reason, funding usually ends when:

• The resident has capital above £23,250; and
• A Deputy is appointed; and
• There is no Deferred Payment Agreement in place”

27. The Council says that contrary to Ms X’s assertion that the withdrawal of funding was a sudden decision, discussions (of which it has provided details) about discharging the placement from Council funding had started in 2022. It says “the decision taken in 2025 was not a new or isolated action, but the outcome of an ongoing process of review and engagement. Earlier opportunities to bring the funding arrangement in line with (Mrs S’s) financial circumstances had been identified and discussed but had not been implemented at those points”.

Analysis

28. Ms X chose not to enter a deferred payment agreement in 2019 when offered by the Council. That was her prerogative but would have averted the situation which arose here. The Council offered that opportunity and was not therefore at fault.
29. There were several points over the three years prior to the decision when the issue of Mrs S’s funding by the Council had been raised. It should not therefore have been a surprise to Ms X when the Council made the decision to withdraw funding. There was no reason why the Council should have continued to fund Mrs S’s placement.

Back to top

Decision

30. I have completed this investigation as I find no evidence of fault on the part of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman