Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s charges for his father, Mr Y’s, care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council calculated his father, Mr Y’s capital and applied it to care costs during the 12-week property disregard period.
2. Mr X says that this has caused the Council to charge care costs from his father’s estate, causing distress and concern. Mr X wants the Council to recalculate the charge for Mr Y’s care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils may charge for care and support provided under the Care Act 2014. Where they do so, they must carry out a financial assessment to determine what a person should pay. Charges should reflect the person's assessed care needs and agreed care package.
7. The Council carried out a financial assessment of Mr Y in February 2025. Mr X raised concerns with the outcome and provided the Council with more evidence. In May 2025, the Council adjusted Mr Y’s financial assessment to account for works to prepare the property for sale. However, the charge for care remained the same.
8. Mr X and Mr Y jointly owned the home in which Mr Y lived before becoming a permanent care home resident. When carrying out the financial assessment, the Council calculated particular home maintenance costs incurred as split equally between Mr X and Mr Y as joint owners. Mr Y’s calculated capital remained above the upper capital limit of £23,250.
9. Based on the response provided by the Council to our enquiries, Mr X has not demonstrated to it that Mr Y was solely responsible for the costs which the Council deemed them to be equally liable. Nor has Mr X provided us with evidence to that point. Consequently, the Council has relied on the evidence it has had. The Council maintains that any additional evidence Mr X can provide will be considered. As the Council has followed its policy and the requirements for the financial assessment, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman