Council failed to suitably explain deprivation of assets decision to son of woman requiring care, Ombudsman finds

The investigation also found fault with the council failing to suitably explain its deprivation of assets decision to the woman’s son, Mr X.

Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the council placed his mother in a care home without discussion or agreement.

He said the council was sending invoices for money and had made an incorrect decision that his mother, Mrs Z, deprived herself of assets to avoid care charges.

Before 2021, Mrs Z lived in her own home. Mrs Z had two separate spells in a care home in the lead up to 2021.

In 2021, Mrs Z sold her home. Her son, Mr X, used the proceeds to purchase a family home for him, his wife and Mrs Z to live in. Mr X did not place Mrs Z on the deeds of the house purchase.

In May 2023, Mrs Z entered hospital. The hospital contacted the council for an assessment of Mrs Z’s needs on discharge and confirmed that Mrs Z lived with her son and his wife.

As part of the council’s assessment of Mrs Z, it spoke with Mr X who said Mrs Z could not return to live with him because of her increased needs and his own health issues.

Mr X said he felt Mrs Z needed to be in a care home. The council told Mr X it would need to complete a financial assessment of Mrs Z to determine any contribution towards her costs and would complete a Mental Capacity Assessment of Mrs Z.

The council discharged Mrs Z to a care home in June 2023.

In September 2023, the council told Mr X the care home placement would be non-chargeable while it was a short-term plan.

However, on 23 October 2023, the council issued an invoice for Mrs Z’s care home costs on the short-term basis.

The report noted: “This detailed the exact costs of Mrs Z’s short-term stay in the care home on a weekly basis. Mr X contacted the council to dispute the invoice. Mr X said the council told him it would not charge Mrs Z.”

In January 2024, the council’s financial assessment team said it considered Mrs Z had deprived herself of assets in 2021 from the sale of her property.

The Ombudsman observed the council’s notes “did not include any rationale to support this”.

The council wrote to Mr X to advise it considered Mrs Z needed to pay the maximum charges towards her care home costs. The council said this was because Mr X had used proceeds from Mrs Z’s house sale to purchase his own property and it considered this a deprivation of assets.

The council said Mrs Z would therefore need to meet this full cost from 17 June 2023.

The council stopped funding for Mrs Z’s care home placement in February 2024 and told Mr X this would now be directly between the care home and family.

Mr X made a complaint to the council in January 2025. He said:

• He rejected that he was responsible for Mrs Z’s care home fees.
• The council arranged the care home placement and neither he nor his mother agreed to that care home.
• The council failed to seek his mother’s wishes who wanted to live with close family members and not in a care home. Mr X also said the council failed to consult with him or his wife who would have said the same thing.
• The council had placed his mother at an overly expensive care home that is unable to meet her needs.
• He considered the council was responsible for paying the care home fees.
• He disputed the financial assessment because this considered that Mrs Z still had funds from her house sale which were used to purchase a house that he, his wife and his mother all lived in.
• Purchase of this property was not a deprivation of assets because Mrs Z did not want to live in a care home and wanted to live in the family home.
• The decision to use the funds from her house sale to purchase a new property was so they could find a suitable property for his mother to live in and to avoid moving into a care home.

The council issued a complaint response in February 2025. The council said:

• It discussed Mrs Z’s situation with Mr X in May 2023 who told the council he considered Mrs Z needed to move into a care home.
• It met with Mrs Z, considered her capacity to make decisions and confirmed her wish to move into a care home with Mr X’s wife present.
• Mrs Z made clear preference to move into this care home.
• It explained the financial assessment process to Mr X, his wife and Mrs Z. The council said Mrs Z and Mr X both signed financial assessments documents.
• It completed further assessments of Mrs Z who confirmed her desire to stay in the care home and spoke with Mr X who also reiterated that Mrs Z should stay in the care home. The council said Mrs Z reiterated the current care home was her chosen placement.
• It told Mr X in January 2024 that Mrs Z would need to fund her full care costs because it considered the sale of the property was a deprivation of assets.

Considering the case, the Ombudsman said: “From June 2023, when Mrs Z moved into the care home, until January 2024, the council took twenty weeks to complete the financial assessment. The delay outside this twenty-week timescale was caused by Mr X not returning the relevant requested information from August 2023 to October 2023.

“Taking twenty weeks to complete a financial assessment is an extended period of time; this was fault by the Council. The Council compounded this fault by failing to share any information about what Mrs Z’s costs might be until February 2024. This fault caused Mr X distress through receipt of a large backdated bill in February 2024.”

Turning to the issue of deprivation of assets, the Ombudsman said: “A council must consider three main questions when deciding if a person has deprived themselves of assets. This is whether a person has a reasonable expectation of needing care, a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute towards the cost of care and whether avoiding care costs was a significant motivation in disposing of an asset. A council should not be deciding a person has deprived themselves of assets without suitable justification as a person can dispose of an asset without this being a deprivation.

“As part of the Ombudsman’s enquiries of the council, the council has explained its full rationale behind its decision over the deprivation of assets. The council outlined that it previously advised Mr X to put his mother’s name on any property he purchased using funds from the sale of her property. The council also provided basic financial assessment information about care charges when it gave this advice. The council said Mr X’s decision not to put his mother’s name on the deeds showed a motivation to try to avoid care charges in the future should the need for these arrive. This is a decision the council is entitled to make and I do not find fault.”

The report continued: “Overall, the council has made a merits decision that Mrs Z deprived herself of assets considering the relevant guidance. However, the council has never fully explained its rationale or decision to Mr X since the time it originally made this decision in January 2024. Nor did the Council keep suitable records of this decision in a clear and concise manner with its decision-making spread across two years’ worth of records. This was fault.”

To remedy the injustice caused the council was recommended to:

• Provide an apology to Mr X and a payment totalling £1,000 for the distress and uncertainty it caused through delays in completion of the financial assessment, delays in providing any indication of a monetary figure Mrs Z might need to pay towards her care home costs and failure to explain its deprivation of assets decision suitably to Mr X.
• Remove Mrs Z’s care costs from 17 June 2023 to 23 September 2023 because of the conflicting information it provided about whether her care would be non-chargeable.
• Provide a full explanation of to Mr X of its deprivation of assets decision referring to the relevant questions about expectation of needing care, expectation of needing to contribute towards the cost of care and motivation for disposal of an asset as outlined in the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
• Produce an action plan to identify why it is not considering the full relevant criteria for a deprivation of assets decision, from the Care and Support Statutory Guidance, as standard practice and to address its poor record keeping about its rationale over such decisions.

A spokesperson for Gloucestershire County Council said: “We value the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman’s independent adjudication and, in all cases, always strive to learn and improve as a result.

"The county council takes accountability where fault is found and will not hesitate to apologise and comply fully with all recommendations to remedy a situation and improve a service delivery in the unfortunate event of injustice having been caused.

"In this case, the remedy has already been provided to the individual concerned.”

Lottie Winson