Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about her mother’s financial assessment because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s decision to include the value of her mother’s property in its financial assessment. Ms Y says the property should have been disregarded, and the Council failed to properly apply the law to do this.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y’s mother (Mrs Z) moved into a residential care home and the Council completed a financial assessment to decide what she could afford to pay. The Council included the value of Mrs Z’s property in its financial assessment. This is not unusual; however, councils must disregard the property’s value for the initial 12 weeks.
7. The property must also be disregarded where the person no longer occupies the property, but it has been continuously occupied as their main and only home by a qualifying relative.
8. Ms Y says her mother’s property should have been disregarded in the Council’s financial assessment because she is a qualifying relative. The Council disagreed with Ms Y and said there was no evidence to suggest she was continuously living at the property.
9. Ms Y challenged the Council’s decision not to disregard the property. The Council reviewed its decision but maintained its position. The Council decided the timing and nature of Ms Y’s move into her mother’s property was primarily intended to safeguard the family inheritance. It said the criteria for disregarding the property was not met, and therefore it included the value of Mrs Z’s property in its financial assessment.
10. Whilst I acknowledge Ms Y disagrees with the Council’s decision; there is insufficient evidence in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. The Council properly considered the circumstances and evidence available to it in reaching its decision. It also said it would reconsider the matter should Ms Y provide evidence that warrants a further financial assessment.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether somebody disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman