Islington Council abandoned a blind man with dementia by needlessly cancelling his payment account, leaving him without support, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has ruled. The resident, known only as Mr Y, was born blind and had relied on the council's care services since 1990. In October 2024, his representative, Mr X, discovered that Mr Y's total savings and assets had exceeded the £23,250 legal limit, making him ineligible for financial support with his care.
Council Blocked Account with Ten Days' Notice
Since 2016, Mr Y had used the managed account not only for direct payments but also to organise his care, including paying his carers. After Mr X informed the council of Mr Y's financial status, the local authority blocked all access to this account in June 2025, giving just ten days' notice. Although Mr Y was legally no longer eligible for financial help, the LGSCO found Islington was guilty of “fettering its discretion” by jumping straight to closing the account. This effectively ended all monitoring of his wellbeing without considering if the council was still bound to support him.
Prior to the watchdog's involvement, Mr X had challenged the council, arguing that they could keep Mr Y's account open and treat him as a “full-cost” payer. He complained that the council had communicated poorly and terminated the account with short notice. The council accepted this and offered a “symbolic” £250 to remedy any distress, suggesting it would reconsider its decision to close the account. However, officers ignored the dispute until the Ombudsman had finished investigating, roughly a year later.
Ombudsman Found Council Caused Unnecessary Distress
After Mr X raised the issue with the LGSCO, the watchdog investigated and found the council caused injustice to Mr Y by ignoring its statutory obligation to consider Mr Y's circumstances before closing the account. This had caused “unnecessary distress”, cost the resident money, and ran the risk that his support needs fell through the cracks as the council lost contact with him through its main channel, his account. The investigation also rebuked the council for only helping the man transition to self-funding after it was challenged over the sudden closure of the account.
Under the Care Act 2014, councils must assess any adults who appear in need of care or support regardless of their financial situation. They are under strict duty to meet these needs if the person is outside a residential care home and asks them to. This remains the case even if the person has more than £23,250 in savings and assets. Beyond this, once a person's capital exceeds the threshold, the council is still legally required to arrange and manage their care if asked.
Council Ordered to Apologise and Reinstate Account
The Ombudsman stated: “There is no record the council considered allowing Mr Y to keep his managed account with the clear benefits that bought him. It fettered its discretion and that was a fault.” The LGSCO recommended that the council apologise to Mr Y and reinstate his account, treating him as a full-cost payer and reimbursing him for any extra costs he incurred from paying for his care since the managed account was closed in June 2025. The council accepted this, and committed to creating a new policy and guidance for residents in similar situations, and sending the Ombudsman proof it has acted on the investigation within six months.
