The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide his mother-in-law Mrs C with care and support. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation.
The complaint
Mr B complained the Council has refused to provide care and support to his mother-in-law, Mrs C, who lacks capacity and lives with him and his family. Mr B says they cannot manage Mrs C’s care needs and do not have the space to accommodate her. Mr B says the Council should answer his questions and offer support as they need help.
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B complains on behalf of his wife who is his mothers-in-law’s, Mrs C’s, legal Power of Attorney for property and finances. Although I do not have written consent from Mrs B for Mr B to act on her behalf, the Ombudsman’s decision would be the same.
The Council says when the proceeds of the sale of Mrs C’s property were distributed she was living in permanent care and would have known money would have been needed to pay for her care. It said Mrs C is not eligible for care from it as it considers she has notional capital over the threshold for Council funding.
Mr B says the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of Mrs C’s property were in accordance with her wishes and not for the purpose of avoiding paying for care.
As Mrs C’s attorney, Mrs B’s obligation to manage her finances goes beyond that of a family member, and, at the point Mrs C’s attorney’s distributed the proceeds from the sale, they should have known that Mrs C would have needed care in the future, especially as she was living in permanent residential accommodation and receiving care at the time.
The information I have seen shows the Council considered evidence about whether Mrs C might reasonably have foreseen a need for chargeable care services when she gave the proceeds of the sale of her property to her daughters. The fact Mr B might disagree with their conclusion is not evidence of fault in the way they made the decision. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to act as an appeal body for decisions people disagree with. The underlying complaint is about whether the Council should provide care to Mrs C, now she is living with Mr and Mrs B. However, there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to treat Mrs C as if she still had the asset she gifted, to warrant us investigating. This point is properly for a court of law to decide.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman