Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his late mother, Mrs Y, the Council failed to give him information about the 12-week disregard and deferred payment plans. Mr X says this resulted in unnecessary work and stress. He says personal items had to be sold quickly meaning a loss of value to fund the care home. We have not found fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his late mother, Mrs Y, the Council failed to give him information about the 12-week disregard and deferred payment plans.
2. Mr X says this resulted in unnecessary work and stress. He says personal items had to be sold quickly meaning a loss of value to fund the care home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for permanent residential care

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 but will still need to contribute to the care costs from their income. People in a care home will contribute most of their income towards the cost of their care and support. However, they must be left with a specified amount of their own income to spend on personal items. This is called the personal expenses allowance (currently £23.50 per week).

12-week property disregard

10. The Council’s website says a 12-week period is provided to allow a person to decide how they would like to use their property to pay for their ongoing care during a time of crisis.
11. The Council’s website says to be eligible for 12 weeks of funding paid for by the Council you should have less than the upper capital limit in assets excluding the value of your home.

What happened

12. Mr X called the Council in mid-December 2024. The notes from the call record Mr X asked about Deferred Payment Agreements (DPA’s) and the Council provided some information.
13. Mr X called the Council again in late June 2025 and said Mrs Y’s funds had decreased to around the level of the upper-threshold. The Council wrote to Mr X the same day to say it would complete a financial assessment based on the information he had provided.
14. The Council sent a further letter in late June 2025 explaining about the financial assessment, what would be required and giving details about the threshold Mrs Y would need to meet to qualify for assistance.
15. Mr X emailed the Council in early July 2025 and said he would provide the information required and requested more information on DPA’s.
16. Mr X emailed the Council in early July 2025 to say he had provided the information to allow it to complete the financial assessment. However, the Council responded the following day to say it had not received the attachments Mr X had sent.
17. The Council met with Mr X on 11 July at Mrs Y’s care home. The notes from the meeting say eligibility for funding for Mrs Y’s care and support needs was discussed. The notes say Mr X confirmed Mrs Y had savings over the upper-threshold limit. The Council explained that Mrs Y would not be eligible for the 12-week property disregard as her savings exceeded the financial threshold. Mr X told the Council he would appeal any decision that Mrs Y exceeded the threshold.
18. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-July 2025 to say based on the information provided to it Mrs Y was not eligible for funding towards her care and support needs.
19. Mr X asked the Council to call him following receiving its letter. The notes from the call say Mr X was unhappy Mrs Y was not entitled to the 12-week property disregard. The notes say Mr X said if he had known Mrs Y needed to be below the threshold he would have made sure she was. Mr X also said the Council had not discussed DPA’s with him.
20. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-July 2025 to complain that he was not given details of the 12-week property disregard or DPA’s. He also asked to appeal the Council’s decision about Mrs Y not being eligible for the 12-week property disregard.
21. The Council reviewed Mr X’s appeal and decided it was not upheld in early August 2025.
22. The Council issued a complaint response in early September 2025 and confirmed Mr X’s appeal regarding the 12-week property disregard had not been upheld. It also said it discussed DPA’s with him in December 2024 and further information was provided in June and July 2025. The Council said Mr X had given inconsistent information regarding Mrs Y’s savings. It also said it considered Mr X’s request about sudden and unexpected changes in Mrs Y’s finances but had found no evidence to support this.
23. Mr X raised a further complaint in late September 2025 and said he was not given information about the 12-week property disregard and a DPA until after he had submitted Mrs Y’s financial information.
24. The Council responded to say if Mr X was unhappy with its response to his complaint he could contact the Ombudsman.

Analysis

25. The Council discussed DPA’s with Mr X in December 2024 and again in June 2025.
26. Mr X provided information about Mrs Y’s savings which exceeded the upper capital limit on several occasions.
27. The Council therefore assessed Mrs Y as not being eligible for the 12-week funding for property disregard.
28. Mr X appealed this and after reviewing the appeal the Council said it did not uphold it. The Council explained the reasons for this to Mr X.
29. I understand Mr X feels the Council did not give him information regarding both DPA’s and the 12-week property disregard. However, the Council did discuss DPA’s and explained why Mrs Y was not eligible for the 12-week property disregard.
30. I have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman