The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about social care charges and the Council’s delay in starting a care assessment. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the first part of her complaint. We will not investigate the second part of her complaint because we are satisfied with the way the Council responded to her concerns and consider them to be a reasonable remedy.
The complaint
Miss X complains on behalf of her mother; Mrs Y. Miss X said the Council wrongly treated Mrs Y’s capital gifts to her children as a deprivation of assets.
Miss X said the Council failed to consider the deaths of Mrs Y’s son and daughter and how this impacted Mrs Y’s decision making.
Miss X said the Council delayed carrying out a care assessment on Mrs Y. She said the Council’s delays and decisions have impacted the whole family. Miss X said the Council should accept Mrs Y was not trying to avoid paying care costs when she made the capital gifts.
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, or if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We have not seen enough evidence of fault with the Council’s action to justify investigating its Council’s decision to treat Mrs Y’s capital gifts as a deprivation of assets. This is because the evidence available shows the Council took Mrs Y’s circumstances into account, including the deaths of her two children, and followed our guidance on care finance decisions.
The Council told Mrs Y in 2023 she would need to pay any future care charges in full because her savings were above the capital threshold set by the government. Mrs Y also signed a declaration in 2023 to agree that she understood she would need to pay for future care costs in full.
Mrs Y made the capital gifts in early 2024.
The Council said it considered Mrs Y capital gifts to be a deprivation of assets to avoid paying full care charges because Mrs Y knew she would need to pay for future care costs in full. The Council said the capital gifts brought Mrs Y’s savings under the capital threshold and it noted she had no history of making capital gifts to her relatives.
We will not investigate the second part of Miss X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to her concerns and consider them to be a proportionate and reasonable remedy.
The Council has apologised for its delay in starting a care assessment after Mrs Y was discharged into respite care in 2024. It accepted the delay was unacceptable, and introduced guidance for staff to make sure people waiting for assessments are contacted regularly and given advice on how to manage their care needs.
Final decision
We will not investigate the first part of Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify a further investigation. We will not investigate the second part of her complaint because we are satisfied with the Council’s actions and consider them to be a proportionate and reasonable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman