A SOMERSET man was left fearing he could lose his family home in order to pay for his mother’s care following a decision by the county council.

The man – known as Mr X – cared for his mother in the property before she moved into a nursing home.

When the council assessed his mother’s care needs, they included the value of the house among her assets which she could use to pay for her care – despite her son still living in it.

Mr X complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, saying the council’s actions had “put an immense strain” on him.

The council has now apologised for the harm caused and has carried out a fresh care assessment.

Under the Care Act 2014, councils must take account of the value of any property (or land) owned by an individual when assessing how much they should pay for their care.

The council can disregard a given property if it is still being occupied by another member of the same family under certain conditions – for instance, if the occupier is under 18, over 60, or is incapacitated.

It can also do a ‘discretionary disregard’ to take account of specific circumstances – for instance, if a person has given up their own home to look after the person, who is now in a care home.

Mr X, who is in his mid-50s, has lived with his parents all his life, aside from a brief period in the 1990s while he was studying.

He remained with his mother in the family home after his father died in 2000, with his mother moving into a care home in 2017.

When the council assessed her ability to pay for her care, it “decided to not use its discretion to disregard her property” – meaning the home could have been sold off while Mr X was still living in it.

Mr X asked the council to reconsider, arguing he had nowhere else to live, was registered to vote and paid council tax from the property, and was registered with a local GP.

He said he had prevented his mother from going into care earlier by meeting her needs at home, and his own health prevented him from being able to work full-time.

But the council refused to change its mind, arguing Mr X had his own income and therefore could afford to move into his own property.

The ombudsman concluded: “The stress and worry of Mr X losing his home, as well as losing the companionship of his mother, has put an immense strain on him.”

The ruling said the council’s actions had created “undue stress and frustration,” ordering officers to apologise to Mr X and reconsider his case.

Stephen Chandler, the council’s outgoing director of adult social care, said: “Like all local authorities, we follow statutory Care Act guidance which sets out how councils should charge whenever someone needs care and support from a care home.

“Only in particular circumstances can the family home be disregarded in this assessment.

“Although Mr X did not meet this criteria, we accept the ombudsman’s findings that we did not provide Mr X with a detailed enough explanation on how we considered his request.

“We have now reconsidered it, apologised for the uncertainty caused and have provided a detailed explanation of how we reached our decision.”