Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about how the Council handled her mother’s, Ms X’s care after her hospital discharge or that the Council accused her of asset deprivation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council falsely accused her and her sister of depriving her mother, Ms X of assets by selling her property. Mrs Y further complained about the Council’s failure to provide Ms X with immediate aftercare following her discharge from hospital.
2. Mrs Y said the Council’s lack of transparency in how it communicated care funding needs and options to the family when Ms X moved into her extra care accommodation left Ms X in a position where she is unable to pay for her future care needs. She also said the delay in aftercare worsened Ms X’s health and mobility, causing avoidable pain and distress. As a result, Ms X required additional care, for which the Council is now seeking payment.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to cover the additional care costs Ms X required but also to cover the costs for Ms X’s future care needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Deprivation of assets

8. In October 2022, Ms X moved out of her permanent residence into extra-care accommodation where she has resided ever since. Mrs Y said the Council lacked transparency in how it communicated Ms Y’s care funding needs. She says the family therefore wrongly assumed Ms X could self-fund her care costs out of her regular pension earnings.
9. The family sold Ms X’s residence in June 2023 and gifted the money to Mrs Y and her sister. The proceeds were reinvested. The Council said this gifting act happened at a time when it was clear Ms X would need ongoing care and support.
10. In June 2024, following a request from the family, the Council carried out a financial assessment after Ms X was discharged from a hospital stay. The Council decided in its assessment the family had deprived Ms X of her assets when it sold her property. As a result, the Council concluded Ms X’s finances were above the upper threshold and Ms X remained responsible for the full cost of her care.
11. The law states deprivation of assets occurs when it appears, based on available evidence, that a person has deliberately deprived themselves of assets to avoid paying for care and support costs. In this case the Council will then financially assess the person as if they still possess the assets which it did in Ms X’s case.
12. The Council confirmed issuing the first invoice for Ms X’s care in December 2022. It took this as evidence the family was fully aware of Ms X’s care costs, by the time of the house sale in June 2023 and thus deliberately deprived Ms X of her assets. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council concluded deprivation of assets occurred. If there was no evidence of fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.
13. Mrs Y complained about a lack of clarity in how the Council discussed Ms X’s care needs. The Council recorded informing the family in October 2022 they needed to cover the full care costs as Ms X’s assets were above the upper threshold. The Council further said it is not responsible for providing personal financial advice but expects families to seek independent financial advice regarding personal financial matters such as the sale of Ms X’s residence. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint as our further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Complaint about Ms X’s level of aftercare immediately following hospital discharge in 2024

14. In May 2024, Ms X was discharged from the hospital and returned to her extra-care accommodation. At the time, Mrs Y expressed concerns, stating she would have preferred Ms X to be discharged into a care home. Mrs Y also reported Ms X did not receive any immediate physiotherapy aftercare for four weeks following her discharge. She said this delay caused Ms X avoidable pain and mobility issues, resulting in the need for additional care. The Council is now seeking payment for this extra care.
15. In its complaint’s response, the Council acknowledged it recorded Mrs Y’s concern she had about discharging Ms X back into her extra-care accommodation rather than into a care home. The Council confirmed the care home did not have availability to look after Ms X. When Ms X was discharged, her care package was intended to include both physiotherapy and reablement care. The Council’s responsibility was limited to the reablement part of the care package. In line with guidance on its website, the Council was required to arrange up to six weeks of reablement care, free of charge, to support Ms X’s transition back into the community. The Council confirmed it delivered the full six weeks of reablement care as planned. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman