Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision about the liability for care charges.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council did not take into account relevant facts when it reached the decision that his mother Mrs B had deliberately sold some land to avoid care charges. He says as a result of its decision the family will suffer significant financial losses.

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’.
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. It is not our role to question the merits of a decision which has been taken properly however much someone may dislike or disagree with it.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
8. Someone with over £23,250 in capital will be classed as able to afford the full cost of their care. 
9. The care and statutory support guidance says, “The following capital assets must be disregarded:

(b) the surrender value of any:

• (i) life insurance policy”
1. The guidance says “When undertaking or reviewing a financial assessment a local authority may identify circumstances that suggest that a person may have deliberately deprived themselves of assets in order to reduce the level of the contribution towards the cost of their care.”
2. The guidance goes on: -

“11) There may be many reasons for a person depriving themselves of an asset. A local authority should therefore consider the following before deciding whether deprivation for the purpose of avoiding care and support charges has occurred:

1. (a) whether avoiding the care and support charge was a significant motivation in the timing of the disposal of the asset; at the point the capital was disposed of could the person have a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support?
2. (b) did the person have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs?

12) For example, it would be unreasonable to decide that a person had disposed of an asset in order to reduce the level of charges for their care and support needs if at the time the disposal took place they were fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for care and support.”

12. The guidance also says a person can deprive themselves of capital in many ways, but one common approach may be where assets have been used to purchase an investment bond with life insurance.

What happened

13. Mrs B owned an inherited share in a plot of land. In 2022, when Mrs B was 91, she sold her share of the land to a developer and invested most of the proceeds in an investment bond. Her son Mr B is also named on the bond. Mr B says the investment bond was purchased as a way of protecting Mrs B’s children’s and grandchildren’s’ inheritance in the way that savings couldn’t because it is disregarded as capital for assessing care costs. He says they sold the field after being approached by an investment company who wanted it for a housing estate. Mr B explains the sale process began in 2016 but was not complete until 2022.
14. In 2025 Mrs B had a fall for which she was admitted to hospital and then to a care home, before she was discharged home with a care package of 4 calls a day.
15. The Council carried out a financial assessment which showed Mrs B had assets above the upper threshold. The assessment officer considered that Mrs B had deliberately deprived herself of assets by investing the proceeds of land sale in an Investment Bond.
16. The Council’s Deprivation of Assets Panel considered the available evidence. It considered

• Mrs B’s medical history dating back to 2012
• Previous care provision episodes in 2017 and 2018
• Aids (perch stool, shower aids, walking sticks and so on) provided to Mrs B to assist her at home
• A ‘cost of care’ letter signed by Mrs B in 2017 which explained there would be financial contributions towards the cost of any care
• The timing of the land sale.

The report to the Panel said “At the time the bond was purchased (Mrs B) was experiencing health issues, and had previously received care in 2017, so she could have a reasonable expectation of the need for care in the future. She had also been provided with a costs of care letter, so would have been aware of the need for a financial assessment, and the processes involved.”

17. Mr B appealed against the outcome of the assessment and the Panel’s decision. The Council’s assessment manager replied. He said the panel believed Mrs B could have had a reasonable expectation of the need for care in the future in view of her existing medical conditions, previous provision of care and the knowledge of the likely contributions. He said while the Panel had noted and accepted the reasons Mr B had supplied for purchasing the bond, it considered that avoiding or reducing future care costs was a significant motivating factor.
18. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. He said his mother had been living independently since the death of his father in 2011. He said she had previously had some care in 2017 but had stopped that care package early. He noted the financial impact of the Council’s decision.
19. The Council says “at the time the bond was purchased in 2022 (Mrs B) had a number of long-term health conditions, dating back many years. Her Shared Care record shows 42 active health conditions, and 135 historic conditions. Due to her long-term health conditions at that time she purchased the bonds, we are of the opinion that she could have a reasonable expectation of the need for care in the future.”
20. The Council also says that Mr B “demonstrated a prior knowledge that income bonds can usually fall to be disregarded from the financial assessment prior to the financial assessment taking place. The deprivation panel determined that this is evidence that (Mrs B) (or persons acting on her behalf) purchased an investment bond with life assurance, to deprive herself of an asset that would have otherwise been considered for the purposes of the financial assessment.” Mr B says he only became aware of this after his mother went into the care home in 2025.

Analysis

21. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that there had been a deprivation of assets.
22. The Council undertook the financial assessment, made a decision, and a panel considered Mr B’s arguments. While the outcome is not one which Mr B agrees with, it is not evidence of fault by the Council. I note Mr B’s argument that the sale began in 2026 but by that time Mrs B already had a number of significant medical conditions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman