Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s delayed handling of her relatives request for a deferred payment agreement. The Council agreed it was at fault and had caused delays. It apologised and reimbursed care costs from when it found the agreement should have been in place. Based on the evidence available, we found the Council had properly acknowledged its fault, remedied the injustice this caused, and took appropriate steps to limit such delays.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained, on behalf of her relative (Ms X), about the Council’s handing of their request for a deferred payment agreement (DPA) for her care costs. She said it:
• caused delays in responding and dealing with the request for several months;
• failed to inform her about the outcome of Ms X’s Care Act needs assessment in Autumn 2025; and
• wrongly applied incorrect policy or procedure for the DPA to first start after a Land Registry charge was registered, which caused further delay.
2. Mrs Y said, as a result, Ms X savings reduced to below capital limits and caused financial concern to her and Ms X.

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 Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Y 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

Relevant law, guidance, and policy

Council’s statutory duties

7. The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 (Regulations) provide details of councils’ duties towards their residents with eligible social care needs and rules for charging for the services provided.
8. When exercising their social care functions councils must follow the Care and Support Statutory guidance (Statutory Guidance) issued by the Department of Health and Social Care, which is based on the Care Act 2014, unless they have very good reasons not to. They should also follow the Regulations.

Charging for permanent residential care

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

Deferred Payment Agreements

12. People who own their own home can use the value of their property to pay for their residential care fees through a deferred payment agreement (DPA) with their local council. A DPA is a long-term loan secured against the person’s home. Under the agreement the council will pay the care home costs and the loan will be repaid when the person chooses to sell their home or after their death. (Care and Support statutory guidance paragraph 9.7)
13. DPAs are designed to prevent people from being forced to sell their home in their lifetime to meet the cost of their care. Local authorities must offer them to people who meet the criteria:
• someone assessed as needing permanent residential care;
• someone with less than £23,250 in assets, excluding the value of their home;
• someone who’s home is not disregarded in their financial assessment. (Care and Support statutory guidance paragraph 9.7)
14. Local authorities are, at their discretion, permitted to be more generous than these criteria and offer deferred payment agreements to people who do not meet criteria. In deciding whether someone who does not meet all of the criteria above should still be offered a deferred payment, some considerations a local authority may wish to take into account include (but are not limited to):
• whether meeting care costs would leave someone with very few accessible assets;
• whether someone has any other accessible means to help them meet the cost of their care and support; and
• if a person is narrowly not entitled to a deferred payment agreement given the criteria above, for example because they have slightly more than the £23,250 asset threshold. This should include people who are likely to meet the criteria in the near future. (Care and Support statutory guidance paragraph 9.7)
15. Where someone chooses to enter into a deferred payment agreement, local authorities should aim to have the agreement finalised and in place within 12 weeks of the person approaching the local authority. (Care and Support statutory guidance paragraph 9.78)

The Council’s Deferred Payment Agreement policy

16. The Council’s policy sets out when a person who does not meet all the criteria for a DPA, may be entitled to a discretionary DPA. This includes where a person’s social care assessment shows that their identified needs are best met in a care home on a permanent basis.
17. If the person’s identified needs show that a care home placement is appropriate, their social care worker will:
• advise and signpost them to access independent financial and legal advice; and
• flag with its Financial Assessment team if they express an interest in a DPA.
18. The Council’s Finance Assessment team will then consider the request. This includes the property value, carry out appropriate checks regarding finances and the property, carry out a financial assessment, and share an initial response letter. It will then request the application form for the DPA and supporting documents, which must be returned within four weeks.
19. The policy does not set out timescales for the DPA process, but the Council says it will endeavour to reach a decision in principle as quickly as possible after receiving the completed application form and documents. However, some events may be outside the Council’s control which can cause delays.
20. The start date of the DPA is usually from the date the application was received. However, different dates may apply depending on the circumstances of each individual case. This includes where a person still has some capital above the limit of £23,250, in such circumstances the start date will be from when the capital reaches this level.

What happened

21. Ms X lived alone in her property and had been assessed to have eligible needs for care support. A few years ago, when her needs increased, she decided to move into a residential care home. She was a self-funder as she had savings over the capital limits.
22. Mrs Y and other relatives have a power of attorney to deal with Ms X’s care and support and financial matters.
23. In August 2025 Ms X’s property was put up for sale and Mrs Y asked the Council for a DPA. This was because Ms X’s savings were quickly reducing toward the capital limits.
24. In October 2025 the Council carried out a Care Act needs assessment for Ms X. It found she had eligible care and support needs which were currently met in the care home. It intended to follow its DPA procedure.
25. In December 2025 the Council considered Ms X’s case again. This was its Residential Quality Assurance panel (the panel). It found Ms X’s care and support need did not require her to be in a residential care home.
26. However, the Council asked its finance team to consider whether a DPA could be arranged for Ms X, and subsequently asked Mrs Y for documents and forms for the request.
27. Ms Y provided the requested information and evidence in January 2025 to the Council. She subsequently chased the Council for updates.
28. In February 2025 the Council shared the DPA documents with Mrs Y to sign. She returned the documents within two weeks. The Council passed the completed documents to the Land Registry to be registered the following day.
29. In March 2025 the Council’s finance team told Mrs Y the DPA was being registered with the Land Registry, once this was completed the Council would make payments to the care home in line with the DPA.
30. The following day the Council’s Adult Social Care team told Mrs Y that Ms X would not be eligible for a DPA as her Care Act assessment found she did not have needs for a residential care home, and her needs could be met in her home with a care package.

Mrs Y’s complaint

31. In March 2025 Mrs Y complained to the Council about its handling of her request for a deferred payment agreement (DPA) for Ms X. She said it:
• caused delays in responding and dealing with the request for several months;
• failed to inform her about the outcome of Ms X’s Care Act needs assessment in Autumn 2025. She also questioned the Council’s view Ms X could pay for a care package in her home, and why she had received different messages about the DPA from the Council’s finance and Adult Social Care; and
• wrongly applied incorrect policy or procedure for the DPA to first start after a Land Registry charge was registered, which caused further delay.
32. In response the Council accepted fault in how it had handled the DPA process for Ms X and apologised. It explained:
• it had failed to progress Ms X’s DPA as expected and within acceptable timeframes;
• it had failed to inform Mrs Y about its findings following its Care Act assessment of Ms X in Autumn 2024, in which it did not consider she had enough needs for a care home placement;
• its panel reviewed Ms X’s case in December 2024, but it should have considered the length of time she had lived in care homes and her personal circumstance. It agreed her care and support should continue to be met within a care home placement;
• despite its view in December 2024, it had arranged for its Finance team to consider a DPA for Ms X. This was progressed in January 2025 and effective from February 2025 when her capital reached below the capital limit of £23,250. Any payments made to the Care Home after this date would be reimbursed to Ms X; and
• it was its practice not to start a DPA until a charge was registered with the Land Registry. However, it would review this.
33. Following a financial assessment in April 2025, Ms X’s DPA was in place in May 2025. This was when the Council first made payments to the care home. The Council reimbursed the care home fees Ms X had paid since February 2025.
34. In November 2025 Mrs Y asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She said the Council’s delays and poor handling of the DPA process resulted in Ms X’s savings to drop well below capital limits which has caused financial concerns. She wanted the Council to top up her savings to the capital limit.
35. In addition, Mrs Y shared new concerns with the Council relating to the DPA’s impact Ms X’s attendance allowance which had been stopped by the DWP. The Council informed Ms Y that Ms X remained entitled to the benefit irrespective of the DPA and she could appeal this with the DWP.
36. We have been unable to obtain information from Ms Y as part of this investigation.

Analysis and findings

The deferred payment agreement process for Ms X

37. The Council agreed there was fault in its handling of the DPA process for Ms X, which included:
• delays to meet the target timescales of 12 weeks due to delays in the process;
• its failure to inform Ms Y about the outcome of the Care Act needs assessment process for Ms X in Autumn 2024, which found a care package in her home was suitable for her. This meant Ms Y did not have an opportunity to challenge the Council’s view;
• its failure to properly consider Ms X’s reasons for living in a care home. When it properly considered this, it agreed such placement was suitable for her. In itself this did not delay the process, as the Council had passed Ms X’s case to its finance team to consider arranging the DPA; and
• its procedure to not to start Ms X’s DPA until after a charge with the Land Registry was completed may have caused delay. This led to Ms X having to pay her care costs for longer than she should have when her savings were below capital threshold savings.
38. I agree with the Council’s findings on these points and have therefore found the Council at fault.
39. Ms Y and the Council disagrees about the impact this has had on Ms X and her finances. The Council’s view was based on the financial records it had received which led it to find her capital reached the threshold of £23,250 in early February 2025. It told her it would reimburse Ms X’s care charges to this date, and I understand this was completed in May 2025.
40. However, Ms Y suggested this was sooner and led to Ms X’s capital reducing well below this threshold, she therefore wanted the Council to top this up.
41. I have not received evidence which shows the Council’s view was wrong, or substantially wrong. I have therefore found no fault in the Council’s decision to start Ms X’s DPA from early February 2025.
42. It is clear Ms X should not have been made to pay her care charges up to May 2025. This is because as the DPA should have been in place but for the Council’s delays. However, as the Council has since apologised and reimbursed her care costs, I am not satisfied there is a significant outstanding injustice.
43. I also understand Ms X’s property has since been sold, which means any remedy for the Council to top up her capital would no longer be relevant.
44. I have not made service improvement recommendations on this case. This is because the Council’s complaints handling showed recognised its faults, addressed these with relevant staff, and arranged for a review of its procedures to limit delays in the DPA process.

Ms X’s benefits issues

45. I cannot consider Ms Y’s more recent concerns about Ms X’s attendance allowance being stopped by the DWP as a result of the DPA with the Council. This is because:
• these matters were not part of the original complaint; and
• Ms X had appeal rights with the DWP, which the Council correctly informed her about. I also note it was not due to any action, or inaction, by the Council Ms X’s benefit was stopped.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused an injustice. However, the Council has appropriately remedied this through its apology and reimbursement of care costs Ms X paid since February 2025.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman