Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the lack of notice and explanation about a change to the Council’s charging policy which significantly increased Mrs B’s financial contribution. We did not find the Council at fault for Mr and Mrs B’s non-receipt of two letters. But the Council did not provide sufficient information once the changes were agreed, to fully inform vulnerable service users about the changes. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B and change its procedure for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that (Northamptonshire County Council) the Council, in respect of a large increase in his wife’s contribution towards her care, failed to notify them of the change, when it would take effect or the reasons for the change. This caused them both significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B’s wife, Mrs B, is disabled. Mr B is her main carer and she receives a package of care at home funded by the Council with a contribution from her, based on her financial circumstances. Mrs B also receives the higher rate of attendance allowance (a non-means-tested benefit paid to disabled people over the age of 65 with care needs). In 2017 Mrs B’s contribution was around £19 per week.
6. In October 2017, the Council started a three-month consultation on proposed changes to charges for its care and support services. It proposed three changes; one of which was to include in the financial assessment, the full amount of payments of the higher rate of Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment. Previously these had been exempt.
7. The Council says it sent a letter to all service users who might have been affected by the change, inviting them to comment on the proposals by 5 January 2018. It said after that date it would write a report for the Council’s cabinet to help them make up their mind which options to implement.
8. The Council has sent me evidence that it sent a letter to Mrs B, care of Mr B, to their address.
9. In February 2018 the Council’s Cabinet agreed to the proposed changes to be implemented from April 2018. The report to Cabinet highlighted that the changes to the charging policy would have a significant impact for some users: the expected increase being around £27 a week.
10. The Council then completed a reassessment of all affected service users as part of the annual financial assessment process. It wrote to Mrs B on 26 March 2018 enclosing the new assessment: her contribution had risen to £45 per week. The covering letter said:

Northamptonshire Adult Social Services have made changes to the Fair Contributions Policy from the 1st April 2018. This policy explains how contributions towards community care services are calculated. The changes may have had an impact on your contribution for 2018/19. The policy will be available from the 1st April 2018 at the following website address…

11. Mr B says they did not receive this letter. He noticed in May 2018 that a higher amount was being taken out of Mrs B’s bank account and contacted the Council to query the change. The Council sent a copy of the information sent to Mrs B on 26 March 2018.
12. Mr B complained to the Council about the increase on 28 May 2018. The Council replied on 20 June 2018 explaining the changes and the consultation process. It explained that it was now taking Mrs B’s attendance allowance into account in full in its assessment. While it had increased the disability-related expenditure allowance by £10 it still meant that Mrs B’s contribution had increased by a significant amount. It said it had checked the assessment and it was correct.
13. Mr B complained again and the Council responded in July 2018 but confirmed the assessment was correct following the policy change. It also confirmed it had sent Mrs B a consultation invite and notification of the new financial assessment.
14. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

15. The Council properly consulted on a significant change to its charging policy. It is unfortunate Mrs B did not receive the consultation invite but the Council has provided some evidence to support its view that it sent the invite and I cannot conclude it was at fault for the non-receipt. It is possible that a postal error was to blame.
16. The change was then agreed by the Cabinet following consideration of a report detailing the proposed changes. I cannot find fault with this part of the process.
17. However, the Council did not then separately notify all the individuals affected to properly explain the changes and the impact. Instead it included a generic paragraph in the annual financial assessment letter with a link to the whole policy on the internet. It did not explain how and why the contribution had increased. I do not consider this was sufficient information for a major change to its policy which it acknowledged would have a significant financial impact on vulnerable service-users. This was fault.
18. The situation for Mr and Mrs B was made worse by the non-receipt of the second letter informing them of the increase in contribution. But, even though I consider the information provided in the letter was inadequate, the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B mainly arose from the non-receipt of the two letters informing them of the changes. If they had received either of the letters then they would have had prior warning of the change and the distress would have been less. I cannot say the Council was at fault for the non-receipt as it has provided a copy of the second letter correctly addressed to Mrs B.
19. The Council responded promptly to Mr B’s query in May 2018 and provided a copy of the letter. However, because the letter did not properly explain the changes, Mr B had to submit a further complaint. The Council’s first complaint response provided information which should have been included in its initial letter; explaining that the increase was due to the Council treating the higher rate of Attendance Allowance as income which was only partially offset by an increase in the allowance for disability related expenditure. This caused Mr B unnecessary time and trouble which could have been avoided had the initial information been more complete.

Agreed action

20. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B by the delay in providing full information about the effect of the changes, I asked the Council to:
• apologise in writing to Mr and Mrs B for the delay in providing full information about the changes; and
• ensure that in future when it proposes policy changes with significant financial impacts on vulnerable service users, that it full explains to each individual, affected in advance of the changes, what is changing, why and the impact on them.
21. The Council has agreed to my recommendations

Back to top

Final decision

22. I consider this is a reasonable and fair way to resolve the complaint and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman