Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs Z deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid paying for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly decided his mother, Mrs Z, had deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid paying care fees.
2. Mr X said this had caused him stress and affected his health.
3. He wants the Council to review its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs Z used to own a property.
9. In 2021, she went into a Care Home where she still resides.
10. In 2022, Mrs Z sold her property and started to self-fund her care. She also repaid care fees she owed from before the sale of the property.
11. In 2023, Mrs Z transferred £156,000 from the sale of her property which Mr X used to buy a property for him and his brother. Mr X later said that it was also intended Mrs Z would move in with them which was why they added her to the deeds and the mortgage.
12. Mr X approached the Council when Mrs Z’s assets dropped below the threshold at which she was expected to pay for her care.
13. The Council explained the timing of the transfer made it clear Mrs Z knew she needed care because she was currently receiving it and also knew it had to be paid for. Therefore, the Council decided the timing of the disposal indicated a motivation to avoid paying for care which meant Mrs Z had deliberately deprived herself of her assets.
14. Annex E of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance explains the three tests councils should consider when deciding whether someone has intentionally deprived themselves of capital to avoid paying for care. It says they must consider:
• whether the person knew they needed care and support;
• whether the person had a reasonable expectation they may need to pay towards that care and support; and
• whether the timing of the disposal indicates a motivation to avoid paying for care.
15. Councils are entitled to draw inferences on motivation based on the three factors set out in the guidance, including taking account of the timing of disposal.
16. Where the Council has made its decision properly, taking the relevant factors into account, it is not for us to substitute our own decision for that of the Council. In this case, the Council has clearly set out how it considered the relevant factors when coming to a decision and explained why the timing of the disposal and other relevant factors, led to its inference regarding intent. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it came to its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman