Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her father’s gift towards her current property amounted to a deprivation of assets. This is because there was insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision that her father, Mr Y, deprived himself of assets when making a gift to her towards the purchase of a property so he could live with her family. She complains the Council is treating Mr Y as still having the funds when calculating what he should pay towards his residential care, which means he has been assessed as having to pay the full cost of his care. Since he does not have access to the funds in question, Mrs X says this is putting his residential placement at risk and she may be forced to sell her family home.

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In 2021 Mr Y, who had a number of health conditions, was living alone, after the death of his wife. The family agreed that he and his daughter, Mrs X, would sell their homes and would buy a larger property so Mr Y could live with Mrs X’s family and Mrs X could provide care and support for him.
6. From the proceeds of the sale of his home, Mr Y gave Mrs X £325,000 towards the purchase of the new property, which was put in Mr and Mrs X’s names. Mr Y lived with Mrs X from March 2022. Around six months later, Mrs X arranged for private carers to support Mr Y with personal care. In late 2022, Mr Y was formally diagnosed with dementia. In November 2023, Mr Y was admitted to hospital. Mr Y and Mrs X, who is his attorney, agreed he needed residential care on discharge because his needs had increased. He moved to a care home in early February.
7. The Council completed a financial assessment in January 2024. It made enquiries about the proceeds of Mr Y’s previous home, which Mrs X responded to. She confirmed Mr Y had given the money as a gift, in part because he wanted her to inherit and not a sibling. She also said she would not have been able to get a mortgage if Mr Y’s name was put on the deeds.
8. The Council’s panel considered the matter in May 2024 and the Council wrote to Mrs X with its decision in early June. The panel:
• acknowledged the original intention had been for Mr Y to live with Mrs X and that she had provided significant levels of informal care;
• considered Mr Y already had significant care needs at the time he made the gift, and referred to the health records it had considered, which meant he had a reasonable expectation of needing care and support in future;
• noted that Mr Y and Mrs X had been given information about the charging regime for adult social care over several years, including prior to Mr Y making the gift, so he had a reasonable expectation he would need to contribute towards the costs of his care;
• stated that, in gifting the sum to Mrs X as an early inheritance, Mr Y had deprived himself of assets because that sum was no longer available to pay his care costs. Therefore, it would treat him as though he still had the £325,000, which meant he would have to pay the full costs of his care.
9. The Council recommended Mrs X get legal advice, which she did. In correspondence with her solicitor, it provided further information about the reasons for its decision and the evidence it had relied upon. It explained there had to be a reasonable inference that avoiding care costs was a purpose, but it did not need to be the sole or primary motivation.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless we find fault with the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
11. From my review of the records, I am satisfied the Council considered all the evidence Mrs X provided. It considered the Care and Support Statutory Guidance, including whether Mr Y had a reasonable expectation of needing care and support, and whether he had a reasonable expectation of having to pay for that support at the time he made the gift. Having considered these questions, the Council was entitled to draw inferences about the motivation for the gift. The Council set out the reasons for its decision in the letter sent to Mrs X after the panel discussion and provided clarification in response to letters from her solicitor. It also responded to the challenge to its decision through its complaints process.
12. Based on this, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman