Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider Mrs Y and her son, Mr Z’s, full circumstances properly when considering a request for a discretionary property disregard from Mrs Y’s financial assessment for her residential care charges. The Council was at fault for failing to demonstrate it properly considered Mrs X’s appeal. This caused Mrs Y’s family distress. The Council agreed to reconsider the appeal and give guidance to staff in its Adult Social Care service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider Mrs Y and her son, Mr Z’s, full circumstances properly when considering a request for a discretionary property disregard from Mrs Y’s financial assessment for her residential care charges.
2. Mrs X said the Council did not provide the policy it followed or the criteria it used when deciding not to exercise discretion.
3. Mrs X said the Council’s decision leaves Mr Z at risk of homelessness as there may be no equity left in the property by the time a mandatory disregard applies in 3 years’ time. The house has been Mr Z’s main and only home for 55 years and he gave up work to care for Mrs Y before she had to go into residential care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for permanent residential care

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

What happened

11. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
12. Mrs Y previously received care and support in her own home, with Mr Z acting as her carer. However, the Council assessed Mrs Y needed permanent residential care in 2025 when her care needs increased.
13. The Council wrote to Mrs Y’s family in June 2025 confirming the outcome of her financial assessment. The Council said because Mrs Y’s capital was above the limit of £23,250, she must pay the full cost of her care. The Council also said it needed to decide whether the equity in Mrs Y’s property should be included in her assessment as a capital asset, since she would no longer be living there. It said a mandatory disregard did not apply, and asked Mrs Y’s family to fill in an appeals form if they would like the Council to consider a discretionary disregard.
14. Mrs X sent an appeal form about the inclusion of Mrs Y’s home amongst her assets for the financial assessment in August 2025. They gave the following reasons why the Council should use its discretion:
• The property was the main and only home of Mr Z.
• Mr Z lived in the home for 55 years, since aged 2, and he does not own his own home.
• Mr Z cared for Mrs Y, and his father, since the late 2010’s.
• Mr Z was self-employed and gave up work to be Mrs Y’s full-time carer. He received carer’s allowance since 2023, recognising he gave more than 35 hours care a week. This enabled Mrs Y to stay in her home.
• Giving up work affected Mr Z’s financial circumstances. He lacks the income or capital to buy his own home, and Mrs Y has left the property to Mr Z in her will. If the property must be sold to pay Mrs Y’s care charges now, or in future, Mr Z will be at risk of homelessness.
15. The Council turned down the appeal. It said Mr Z was 57 years old and could have many years of full employment ahead. As Mrs Y was in residential care, Mr Z can now seek work. The Council said Mr Z is not at risk of being homeless. The Council confirmed a mandatory property disregard will apply when Mr Z turns 60.
16. Mrs X made a stage two appeal. They said the stage one appeal did not consider or take account of the full circumstances of Mrs Y’s case and the financial sacrifices Mr Z made to care for her. They referred to Annex B of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the guidance), citing the example at paragraph 42 of circumstances where a Local Authority may exercise discretion. That being where the property is the sole residence of someone who has given up their home to care for the person who is now in a care home, or is their elderly companion.
17. Mrs X said Mr Z did not give up his home, the property has been his home for more than 50 years. They said he could not rent or buy his own home as his caring responsibilities significantly reduced his earning over the last 8 years. They also said if Mr Z had not provided this care to Mrs Y, then the Council would have had to. They said Mr Z’s client base as a builder has reduced as he stopped work for so long, and it is a physically demanding job. It is therefore unrealistic at the age of 57 to say he has many years of full employment ahead.
18. On the risk of homelessness, Mrs X said if Mrs Y had to enter a deferred payment arrangement to fund her care, then the equity in the property could easily be used up in the next 3 to 4 years. The property would have to be sold when Mrs Y died to pay her care fees, and this would leave Mr Z homeless without enough funds to rehouse himself.
19. A manager in the Council’s finance team asked an assistant director of Adult Social Care for a decision on the stage two appeal. They provided the stage one outcome and the stage two appeal request. They also said Mrs X had “not really supplied anything to consider further above the stage 1, other than quoting that we can use our discretion, which we chose not to”.
20. The Council sent its stage two appeal outcome in September 2025. It said the assistant director agreed with the stage one outcome for the reasons given, and no further evidence was provided to change the outcome.

Analysis

21. While the Council did consider exercising discretion, I cannot say why it did not consider Mr Z was at risk of homelessness – it simply said he was not.
22. I also do not know whether the Council considered the guidance when making its decision. Given the similarity between this case and the example provided in Annex B, paragraph 42 of the guidance, the Council should have considered this and given its views.
23. The Council’s internal correspondence suggested the stage two appeal did not supply anything further to consider above the stage one, other than quoting the Council can use its discretion. The reviewer said no further evidence was provided to change the outcome. I found this surprising, as the stage two appeal specifically refers to Annex B, paragraph 42 of the guidance for the Council to consider, saying it was similar to Mrs Y’s case. However, the Council did not refer to this at all or give any views on it in its appeal response.
24. The stage two appeal explained why Mr Z could not simply return to his former profession and why his age meant he did not have years of employment ahead of him. The Council did not respond to this.
25. The stage two appeal also went into detail about the risk of homelessness to Mr Z. Again, the Council did not engage with this or give any justification for why it thought Mr Z was not at risk.
26. I found the Council did not demonstrate it properly considered the grounds raised in the appeal here, which is fault. I also found its responses lacked sufficient detail or explanations. This caused Mrs Y’s family avoidable distress.
27. I therefore recommended the Council should reconsider the appeal, with specific reference to the example Mrs X raised from Annex B, paragraph 42 the guidance. I also recommended it should give a proper explanation of why it does not consider Mr Z to be at risk homelessness, engaging with the points Mrs X made about Mr Z’s reduced earning capacity, falling equity in the property, and likelihood the family would need to sell the property after Mrs Y dies in order to pay her care fees.

Back to top

Agreed Action

28. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs Y’s family for failing to show it properly considered their appeal.
• Reconsider the appeal, giving a full explanation for its decision which engages with the appeal grounds Mrs X raised.
• Remind staff in its Adult Social Care department to properly consider and reference the Care and Support Statutory Guidance when assessing appeals, to fully engage with all appeal grounds raised, and to properly explain the Council’s decisions.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

30. I found the Council at fault for failing to demonstrate it properly considered Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman