Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for social care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and her daughter Mrs Y complain the Council included the full value of Mrs X’s home in its assessment of Mrs X’s capital when the Council was calculating how much Mrs X should pay towards the cost of her residential care home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the relevant law and government guidance.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X still owns the home where she lived before entering residential care. Mrs Y lent Mrs X money under a loan agreement to pay towards care home fees. The loan was not secured against the value of Mrs X’s former home. Mrs X and Mrs Y complain the Council refused to offset that debt against the value of Mrs X’s former home when calculating Mrs X’s capital for the purpose of deciding how much Mrs X should pay towards her care costs.
6. Government guidance says councils must offset any outstanding debts ‘…secured on the asset...’ (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex B, paragraph 14(b)) This debt was not secured on the asset in question (Mrs X’s home). There was no fault in the Council following the guidance.
7. Councils have some discretion to disregard a property’s value when doing a financial assessment. Government guidance says councils ‘…will need to balance this discretion with ensuring a person’s assets are not maintained at public expense.’ (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex B, paragraph 42) Here, Mrs X and Mrs Y in effect wanted the Council to use that discretion and offset the debt against the property’s value as if it had been a secured debt, although in fact the debt was not secured.
8. I see no fault in the Council not agreeing to that. It was for Mrs Y to decide whether she wanted the certainty of a secured loan when she chose to make the loan. The fact she did not do so does not make it the Council’s responsibility to protect Mrs Y’s position now, retrospectively. Mrs Y reports she has not been able to find a solicitor who will retrospectively put a charge on Mrs X’s property for the loan. Again, it is not the Council’s responsibility to compensate for that.
9. Mrs Y states she has an enforceable loan agreement with Mrs X, although it was not secured on Mrs X’s property. How Mrs Y will get repayment of her unsecured loan to Mrs X is a private matter between them, not involving the Council.
10. Overall, the Council was entitled to make this decision. It gave reasons and took account of the law and government guidance. Therefore the Council properly reached the decision. So, as paragraph 2 explained, we cannot criticise the decision, although Mrs X and Mrs Y can disagree with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council reached its decision properly so there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman