Council wrongly withdrew woman’s care package without considering how her needs would be met pending sale of land, Ombudsman finds

In its investigation, the Ombudsman found no evidence of any consideration of the impact this would have on the woman (Mrs Y)’s wellbeing, or the risks posed by immediately ending the care package.

The Ombudsman also found no evidence that the council considered “exercising discretion” not to charge Mrs Y, or alternatively to fund Mrs Y’s care pending the sale of the land.

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs Z, complained that Somerset had wrongly withdrawn her mother’s care package pending the sale of land owned by Mrs Y.

Mrs Z argued that Mrs Y did not have the funds available to pay for her care and was not able to sell or arrange for the sale of any land herself. As a result, her care needs were not being met and her husband and daughter (Mr Y and Mrs Z) were suffering carer stress.

The background to the case was outlined by the Ombudsman as follows:

In March 2023, Mrs Y was admitted to hospital following a fall. She returned home in early April with a package of care. This was initially provided by the NHS. The council then provided direct payments for 26.25 hours a week from 26 April 2023.

Mrs Y’s daughter, Mrs Z, runs her own care company and provided Mrs Y’s care.

In August 2023, an officer asked Mrs Z to complete a financial assessment form.

Mrs Z returned the completed forms in September 2023. She confirmed the only land Mrs Y owned was attached to the house.

The council asked Mrs Z for copies of title deeds for Mr and Mrs Y’s property, to confirm the land on the farm was attached to the home and under one title. Mrs Z provided this information and confirmed the extent of the land.

According to the council’s records, an officer then contacted a local property and land auctioneer to confirm the value of the land.

Based on the lower price per acre, they calculated Mrs Y’s beneficial interest in the land after selling costs would be almost £100,000.

The council then wrote to Mrs Y in October 2023, advising that the land was classed as a capital asset. As the value of this land was above the threshold of £23,250, Mrs Y would be liable for the full cost of her care from 26 April 2023.

The council advised it would instruct the direct payments team to stop any future payments and to issue an invoice for all the monies paid since 26 April 2023.

Mrs Z contacted the council to discuss the financial assessment then made a formal complaint on 14 November 2023. She complained the council had failed to carry out a financial assessment promptly causing financial hardship and potential damage to health. And had now refused Mrs Y the care and support she needed.

Considering the case, the Ombudsman said: “The council accepts there was a delay in completing the financial assessment. And that it did not provide complete and accurate information at the outset about what would be included in the financial assessment and the impact on Mrs Y. This is fault.”

The Ombudsman continued: “Having belatedly completed the financial assessment, the council has correctly identified that Mrs X has capital in the form of land. Her share of the land is valued at more than £23,250, which would mean Mrs Y is responsible for the cost of her care.

“We would not however expect the council’s consideration of Mrs Y’s circumstances to end here.”

The regulator observed that although the council can charge for the cost of Mrs Y’s care, “it has discretion not to”.

The report stated: “Mrs Y’s age and medical conditions, combined with the fact she owns the land jointly with Mr Y, who does not want to sell the land, means the funds cannot be readily realised. Any attempts to sell the land would also be delayed by the need for Mrs Y to appoint a Lasting Power of Attorney or Deputy with the Court of Protection.

“Even if Mrs Y was the sole owner of the land and was physically and mentally able to sell it, this would clearly take time. It could not be achieved over night or within a matter of days. Unless and until the land is sold, Mrs Y does not have the funds available to pay for the care she needs.

“We consider the council’s decision to immediately end Mrs Y’s care package and seek to recover all costs incurred since April 2023 is fault.”

Lastly, the Ombudsman outlined concern that even when a risk assessment and care assessment showed the removal of Mrs Y’s care package had had a significant impact on her physical and mental health and wellbeing, the council did not agree to reinstate the package.

The Ombudsman said: “[The council] knew the impact on Mrs Y of withdrawing the care package. It knew this meant she would probably be left without care and support it had assessed she needed. It therefore should have considered whether the absence of such support would cause a safeguarding concern. Its failure to do so was fault.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs Y and Mrs Z;
• reinstate Mrs Y’s care package with “immediate effect” to ensure her needs are met and the risk of harm mitigated;
• urgently review Mrs Y’s current situation, her capacity to make relevant decisions and the charging arrangements for her care;
• make a symbolic payment to Mrs Y of £1,000 to recognise the distress and difficulties she experienced as a result of the withdrawal of her care package;
• make symbolic payments to Mr Y and Mrs X of £250 each to recognise the distress and difficulties they experienced in meeting Mrs Y’s care needs following the withdrawal of her care package.

According to the Ombudsman, the council has agreed to the recommendations.

A Somerset Council spokesperson said: "We have accepted the recommendations in the Ombudsman report and these are now underway. We offer our sincerest apologies to Mr and Mrs Y and to Mrs Z and, in discussions with all involved, we are reinstating a care package for Mrs Y to ensure her needs are met and the risk of harm mitigated while we undertake an assessment of her current situation. We are committed to learning from this experience to improve our services for the future."

Lottie Winson