An elderly blind man with dementia was left in the lurch by Islington Council after it needlessly cancelled his payment account, a watchdog has ruled.
By Josef Steen, Local Democracy Reporter
An elderly blind man with dementia was left in the lurch by Islington Council after it needlessly cancelled his payment account, a watchdog has ruled.
The resident, known only as Mr Y, was born blind and had relied on his council’s care services since 1990. But in October 2024 his representative, Mr X, discovered that his total savings and assets had gone over the £23,250 limit, making him no longer eligible for financial support with his care under the law.
Since 2016, Mr Y had used this account not only for direct payments but to organise his care, such as for paying his carers. After Mr X informed the council of his financial status, the local authority blocked all access to this account in June 2025, giving just ten days’ notice.
Although the man was legally no longer eligible for financial help, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found Islington was guilty of “fettering its discretion” by jumping straight to closing the account, which effectively ended all monitoring of his wellbeing without considering if it was still bound to support him.
Prior to the watchdog’s involvement, Mr X had challenged the council, arguing that they could keep his account open and still treat him as a “full-cost” payer. He complained that the council had communicated poorly and terminated the man’s account with short notice.
The council accepted this and offered a “symbolic” £250 to remedy any distress, and suggested it would reconsider its decision to close off the account.
But officers ignored the dispute until the Ombudsman had finished investigating, roughly a year later.
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 it lost contact with him through its main channel, his account.
On top of this, the investigation 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, and are under strict duty to meet these needs if they are outside a residential care home and the person asks them to. This remains the case even if they have 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.
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.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service contacted Islington Council for comment.
