Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she deliberately gave away money to reduce care costs. This is mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms Y made this complaint on behalf of Miss X. She says the Council was wrong to decide Miss X deliberately deprived herself of assets to reduce her care costs. She says the Council:
• failed to consider Miss X’s true intention when she made the gifts and has inappropriately applied the law in its decision;
• provided poor and misleading information throughout the appeals process; and
• made errors in its decision.
2. Ms Y says the Council’s decision has caused Miss X financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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,
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms Y on behalf of Miss X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Statutory Guidance on Care and Support (the Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X needed social care at home. In late 2023, before the Council arranged the home care, a Council social worker visited Miss X, in the presence of Ms Y. The social worker told Miss X of the financial assessment process and the different financial thresholds to be eligible for financial assistance from the Council. The social worker also gave Miss X a booklet about this. Miss X decided to fund her care herself due to her capital being over the financial threshold.
9. Over the next two months, Miss X made financial gifts which significantly reduced her capital. Soon after, Miss X moved into residential care following an accident. Miss X later applied for the Council to pay towards her residential care fees. The Council decided Miss X was not eligible for financial assistance because it considered she had intentionally deprived herself of money to reduce care costs. Miss X appealed the decision, but the Council upheld its decision on appeal.
10. Ms Y and Miss X disagree with the Council’s decision. Ms Y says Miss X understood little of what was said during the meeting with the Council social worker as she is deaf and there was no sign language interpreter present. She says neither she nor Miss X read the booklet, thinking it unnecessary as Miss X had agreed to fund the full cost of her home care. She says the gifts were genuine and Miss X had no intention of depriving herself of assets as she believed she would not need further care after the initial period of home care.

The asset deprivation decision

11. Councils may consider whether a resident has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset to reduce the charges they are asked to pay. The council must be satisfied the resident, at the point of disposing the capital, had a reasonable expectation of needing care and support and of needing to contribute to their care costs, and reduced their assets in order to reduce their contribution to those costs. When assessing an asset disposal, councils must consider several factors, such as the timing of the disposal, the resident’s pattern of gifting, the size of the gift, the resident’s health and expected care needs at the time, and the purpose for making the disposal. Having considered these factors the council may decide to treat the resident as still owning that asset.
12. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered these factors, as well as the evidence given by Ms Y and Miss X, in reaching its decision. I am satisfied it was open to the Council to decide that Miss X had a reasonable expectation of ongoing care, taking into account her age and health when she gave away the money. I am also satisfied it was open to the Council to decide Miss X had a reasonable expectation to contribute towards care costs. The evidence I have seen shows Miss X understood the different financial thresholds as she had previously agreed to pay for her home care costs in full. The facts that an interpreter was not present at the initial meeting, or that she did not read the Council’s booklet, do not mean the Council reached its decision wrongly.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot decide if the Council’s decision was right or wrong. We can only look at the Council’s process for making its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
14. I am satisfied the Council has followed proper processes and made a decision it was entitled to. As there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, I will not investigate this aspect of Miss X’s complaint.

Information from Council

15. Ms Y complains the Council gave poor and misleading information throughout the appeals process.
16. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate this aspect of Ms Y’s complaint where we unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of Ms Y’s complaint.

Errors in decision

17. Ms Y complains about errors in the Council’s final decision. I have reviewed the alleged errors and I am satisfied they would not significantly change the Council’s decision in any event. Therefore I am satisfied Ms Y has not suffered a significant injustice due to any alleged errors.
18. I have not considered some of the other information Ms Y provided because it was not submitted to the Council as part of the appeal. As previously advised, we are not an appeal body and it is not our role to make a new decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman