Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an adult social care financial assessment and the Council’s decision that he deprived himself of assets to avoid care costs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an adult social care financial assessment and the Council’s decision that he deprived himself of assets to avoid care charges. He says he cannot afford the charges. He wants the Council to change its decision and write off the care charges.

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 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils may consider a resident has deliberately deprived themselves of an asset, such as a property they own, in order to reduce the charges they are asked to pay. The council should consider whether deprivation has occurred, what its purpose was, and the timing of that deprivation. Having considered the facts, the council may decide to treat the resident as still owning that asset when assessing how much they should pay towards their care.
7. In January 2023, Mr X transferred his share of a property he owned to his wife. He did not receive any payment for this.
8. The Council carried out a financial assessment. Mr X’s family provided an explanation as to the reason for the transfer, but the Council did not accept their explanation. It decided that Mr X has deliberately deprived himself of assets when he transferred his share of the property to his wife. This meant the Council could take the value of his share of the property into account when calculating what he should pay for his care.
9. In its complaint responses, the Council explained its decision to Mr X. It said it was satisfied that at the time he transferred his share, he had reasonable expectation that he would need to pay for care. This was because he was already receiving care at that time. It said despite the family’s explanation of different reasons, it was satisfied that the motivation for transferring his share to his wife was to avoid care costs. Because of this, it had included his share of the value of the property in its calculations.
10. 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 a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appropriately considered the timing of the transfer and whether Mr X had reasonable expectation that he would need to pay for care when the transfer took place. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman