Date of decision: 26 May 2025
Summary
Mrs X, the daughter of an individual with eligible needs under the Care Act, made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning the Council’s failure to provide clear information about how it would treat a property owned abroad, in a financial assessment for home care charges. Poor communication by the Council and an excessive delay in making any decision regarding the charges for the care services provided to the mother of Mrs X led to the complainant being hit with a large, unexpected bill, causing significant distress to the family.
What happened
Following a hospital discharge in late 2022, the Council assessed the needs of an elderly woman (Ms Y) and arranged a home care package to meet her long-term needs. However, the Council also indicated that a financial assessment was required in light of the information that was disclosed regarding Ms Y receiving a pension from abroad and her savings being below the threshold, to decide whether Ms Y would be required to contribute towards her care costs.
The Council’s records from the 30th September of that year initially stated she did not own property, and that her assets were below £23,250. Ms Y’s care package commenced in November 2022, with a budget of £612.50 per week. She was formally informed that there might be charges to pay which would ultimately be clarified.
The financial assessment process was not initiated until July 2023, with further evidence gathered through October. The assessment eventually included a property abroad (Ms Y owned 100% of it) and valued at £30,000, which was classed as extra capital. Mrs X then cancelled Ms Y’s care package [although the Ombudsman’s report does not clarify whether this was in response to the Council requiring a contribution from Ms Y for her care].
In November, Ms Y received an invoice for £34,637.86 from the Council for the care she received from the 2nd November 2022 to the 18th November 2023. Upon complaint to the Council by Mrs X, the Council acknowledged that the charge levied overlooked that she had cancelled the care package on the 13th October. The Council also reconsidered the total amount due after recognising that if Ms Y made the whole contribution, her assets would have dipped below the upper capital threshold, earlier on, after which she would not have been liable to contribute from the tariff applied to that remaining capital, given her income was so low.
The Council applied for a credit note of £15,212.86, leaving an amount of £19,425 to be paid by Ms Y. The outstanding balance was paid in June 2024 by Mrs X.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for taking over eight months to begin the financial assessment, contrary to statutory guidelines requiring such assessments to be conducted within an ’appropriate and reasonable’ timeframe.
Although the Council was entitled to charge for the service in part, the communication about how foreign property would be treated in relation to the calculation of the service charges was unclear. She had not been misled into thinking that the care would be free, however. The delay caused distress and a massive bill, which came as a surprise to Mrs X and Ms Y, as they had used the service for close to a year and were not expecting an invoice for the backdated charges.
The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay £400 to acknowledge the distress they had caused her, and to improve its financial information for future service users.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Council had cited an ‘unprecedented demand’ for financial assessments as the reason for the delay caused to Ms Y’s assessment. This excuse seems inadequate given the need to assess before any charge can be validly levied, yet the Ombudsman has failed to scrutinise it or call it out as service failure. Such delay caused serious distress. We suspect, though, that more anguish was caused by the presentation of a bill for over £30K than by the delay.
The crux of the issue has not been addressed by the Ombudsman to the degree of detail one might expect, we have to say. We can’t think of any reason, however, why the woman’s 100% owned property abroad should not have been considered as capital.
The report simply assumes the decision made by the Council is correct, without considering the effect the wrongful inclusion of the property has on the validity of the assessment.
Issues pertaining to the property abroad, such as marketability and condition were not discussed in the report – though these may have had a bearing on the lawfulness of the decision to include the property as capital during the assessment process.
This is an important point to establish from a public education view, and this oversight by the Ombudsman risks encouraging councils to engage in minimum due diligence and flawed consideration of overseas assets when making financial assessments.
Certain types of capital are specifically excluded by law but these disregards do not apply to foreign property unless one’s spouse is still living there. If the property cannot be legally or practically transferred to the UK, or its value cannot be readily realised, local authorities may, at their discretion, disregard its value temporarily or until such time as it can be valued or accessed.
But there are other possible outcomes, if for instance the property is jointly owned by someone who does not wish to sell, in which case it can be contended that the share of the other person in question cannot be effectively valued as very few people would want to buy half a property, with a stranger.
In such cases one would expect the facts would be examined in light of principles in public law, put in place to ensure the reliability of the system that such care users are dependent on. This woman was left to assume for eight months that her care was either free of charge or provided in return for a nominal fee.
The report is a warning that people do need to educate themselves by reading the Guidance or looking it up on the internet, and by pressing for an answer as part of the advice and information duty that is owed by councils about paying for care.
Please use the following link to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s West Sussex County Council (24 010 360) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ opinions provided in response will then serve both you and the broader community when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis?
Stay informed with our weekly Alert Service! Providing you with the latest insights from top experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!