Ombudsman criticises council for not providing alternative schemes for care home fees

The London Borough of Sutton should have provided the public with information on alternatives to deferred payment arrangements when a self-funded care recipient exhausts their permitted savings and looks to council support, the Ombudsman has said.

That ruling has come from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which said the council should apologise to resident Mr B and give its staff relevant training.

The case arose when Mr B’s sister Ms C’s savings went below the £23,250 threshold while she was in a care home. Mr B asked Sutton for support through a deferred payment arrangement (DPA) secured against Ms C’s home to be repaid after she died when the home would be sold.

Ms C though owned a house with a mortgage on which the lender had the first charge so the council could not also secure a first charge.

Sutton told Mr B - who had power of attorney for his sister - it could only offer a DPA if the first charge was removed from the property. It sent him information about DPAs, a list of independent financial advisers and a form to complete were the first charge removed.

The council said it considered the case was closed when Mr B did not respond. Mr B later found out the care and support statutory guidance says a council has discretion to consider other forms of adequate security.

He asked why Sutton did not consider this and the council replied that it could neither offer financial advice nor presume a client may hold capital in an undeclared item, and it was up to Mr B to offer suggestions or evidence of other types of security.

The ombudsman said Sutton should consider whether another type of security could be provided if a person cannot secure their deferred payment agreement with a charge on a property.

These could include a third-party guarantor, a solicitor’s undertaking letter, a valuable object such as a painting or an agreement to repay the amount deferred from the proceeds of a life assurance policy.

Sutton did not have an explicit and publicly accessible policy on what other types of security it was willing to accept as required by the care and support statutory guidance, which the ombudsman said was a fault.

“The council says Mr B did not offer any alternatives; but he did not know he could,” the ombudsman said.

“The council is the expert and should provide adequate information to the person. The guidance requires the council to provide information and advice which explains the types of security it would be prepared to accept. The council failed to do this.”

It was “worrying” that Sutton referred only to the care and support statutory guidance and had no localised policy, the ombudsman said, since “the care and support guidance is clear that each local authority should have a policy that is publicly accessible and explains the types of security it will accept”.

Sutton has agreed to apologise to Mr B, create an explicit and publicly accessible policy and give staff guidance on what information should be provided.