The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Ms Y complained the Council wrongly included a property her father, Mr X (who is now deceased), had given to her ten years ago in a financial assessment for Mr X’s care contribution.
Ms Y says this meant her father was expected to pay more than he actually had for his care, which Ms Y says Mr X could not afford, which in turn has caused worry and upset.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17). Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay.
As part of that financial assessment it must consider the assets the person needing care has, including property. In this case, Ms Y says Mr X signed a document which gave Ms Y a property approximately ten years ago. However, Mr X did not transfer the property to Ms Y through the Land Registry. Consequently, Mr X was said to have a financial interest in the property, as the land was not formally transferred to Ms Y, even if this was the intention.
The Council therefore included the second property, which Mr X did not live in, in its assessment of Mr X’s finances and this has meant Mr X was expected the pay more towards his care than he would if the property had been formally transferred earlier through the Land Registry.
As this is what is required by the aforementioned guidance and regulations, we would not find fault in the Council’s inclusion on the property in the financial assessment. Consequently, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman