Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Adult Social Care charges because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly decided her late mother, Mrs Y, had deprived herself of assets resulting in a large bill for care charges. Miss X also complains the Council delayed in its decision making and was poor in its communications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• 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))

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. When someone complains on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity, we may decide not to investigate because the events happened too long ago, meaning we are unlikely to be able to reach reliable conclusions and/or unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Miss X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Deprivation of assets means where a person has intentionally deprived or decreased their overall assets to reduce the amount they are charged towards their care. This means they must have known they needed care and support and have reduced their assets to reduce the contribution they are asked to make towards the cost of that care and support.
10. Documents show the Council considered the information provided, including the stated reasons for Mrs Y placing her house in a trust. However, the Council also outlined the circumstances which led it to believe that at the time the capital was disposed of Mrs Y also had a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support. The Council decided Mrs Y reduced her assets in order to reduce her contribution towards care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.
11. Miss X’s complaint that the Council took two years to reach its decision is late or otherwise arose too long ago for an investigation to achieve a meaningful outcome. Further any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. I say this because the amount would have been payable in any event as Mrs Y needed the care. There are too many variables to say different choices would have been made if the charges were known of earlier. And any distress and uncertainty while awaiting the decision is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
12. Miss X’s complaint that the Council did not ensure Mrs Y signed a contract at the start of her residency in a care home is late or otherwise arose too long ago for an investigation to achieve a meaningful outcome. Further any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. If Miss X considers this affects the legitimacy of the contract and charges, it would be reasonable for her to take the dispute to court.
13. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate ancillary matters, such as the Council’s communication, when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman