Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding a person deprived themselves of capital by creating a trust settlement of their property, assessing their finances as if they still owned the property, and therefore deciding the person should pay for their care in full. Without evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter we cannot question the decisions it reached, so any dispute about the resulting decision is properly a matter for a court of law, not the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has wrongly decided his father, Mr D, deprived himself of the capital value of his property in 2022 when he created a family trust settlement. He considers it has wrongly assessed Mr D as being liable to pay for the cost of his care home place in full.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
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 result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s responses.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Care Act 2014, regulations on charging for care services, and statutory guidance anticipated people might seek to reduce their capital in property by disposing of it in some way, including by creating trust settlements.
8. There is provision, therefore, for councils to consider the circumstances and decide whether they can treat the disposal as a deprivation of assets to avoid paying for care. As it is unlikely anyone would make that purpose plain when disposing of an asset, the guidance includes examples of other relevant factors.
9. In this case, the Council’s decision on the matter in October 2025 sets out clear reasons for its conclusions. It decided Mr D created a family trust in 2022 which wrongly deprived him of a property asset the Council would consider in assessing whether he should pay for care services. It also assessed Mr D as having to pay for his own residential care in full, and decided it therefore has no duty to pay for the care.
10. It is not for the Ombudsman to adjudicate between opposing arguments from the Council and Mr B about Mr D’s intent when creating the trust or other arguments about the disposal. Those arguments are for a court of law.
11. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr B as Mr D’s attorney to apply to the courts if he wishes to dispute the Council’s decision or seek an order the Council should pay for Mr D’s care home placement while the matter remains in dispute.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because without evidence of obvious fault in the way the Council considered the matter it would be reasonable for him to take court action to dispute the decisions at the heart of it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman