Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs Y deprived herself of assets to avoid paying for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council decided his mother, Mrs Y, had deprived herself of assets when she transferred her property to her children in 2017.
2. Mr X said Mrs Y was caused significant distress as her care home placement was at risk. He said he also suffered distress and has paid for his mother’s care out of his own pocket for several months, at a cost of £30,000 at the time he complained to the Ombudsman.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to honour its original agreement to pay Mrs Y’s care fees, and to refund the money he spent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils carry out financial assessments to decide what people with care needs must contribute towards the cost of their care. A person with assets above the upper capital limit (£23,250) is responsible for the full cost of their care in a care home.
8. Councils may consider a resident has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset in order to reduce the charges they are asked to pay. In coming to a decision, councils should consider whether deprivation has occurred, what its purpose was, and the timing of that deprivation. Having considered the facts, councils may decide to treat the resident as still owning that asset.
9. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision his mother, Mrs Y, had deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid paying for care when she transferred her property to her three children in 2017.
10. Mr X says the Council gave assurances in January 2025 that it would pay for
    Mrs Y’s care. However, he has provided us with a letter the Council sent to him in December 2024, that made clear it would need to assess Mrs Y’s finances, and that “any significant use of capital, above a reasonable level, other than for payment towards care fees, might be deemed as deprivation of capital and the monies could still be treated as if you still owned them”. The Council subsequently assessed Mrs Y’s finances and decided the transfer of her property had been a deliberate deprivation of assets.
11. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision, and said Mrs Y had transferred her property with the agreement her children would pay for property maintenance. In its response, the Council explained why it did not accept this alternative reasoning for the property being transferred. It also considered the timing of the transfer, which came shortly after Mrs Y’s needs had increased. Mrs Y was already known to adult social care and had a disabled parking badge. The Council concluded that Mrs Y had a reasonable expectation at the time of the transfer that she would need to pay for care.
12. We are not an appeal body. We consider whether there was fault in how the Council came to its decision. In the absence of fault, it is not for us to substitute our view for that of the Council. In this case, the Council made its decision properly, having regard to the relevant information. It has provided clear justification for the decision it came to, and we could not change that decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and we will not therefore investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman