Summary: The Council accepts there were faults in the way that it assessed Mr D’s care charges, in particular the Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). It has agreed to apologise to Mr D, review his DRE, and make a payment of £450 in recognition of the anxiety caused by its failures, and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs C, complains on behalf of her son, who I call Mr D. Mrs C complains the Council failed to take into account Mr D’s Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) and financial hardship when applying a charge for home support services. Mrs C also says the Council has ignored her telephone calls and told her not to contact it.

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. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)
5. 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

6. I spoke with Mrs C and considered documentary information that she provided. I made enquiries of the Council based on this information. The Council responded to the enquiries offering a remedy to settle the complaint. I spoke with Mrs C who agreed the Council’s proposed actions were sufficient to remedy the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council says that it considered Mr D’s DRE. It asked for more information about his telephone and utility bills to assess if they amounted to DRE. The Council recognises that even though it did not receive information from the family, Mr D was entitled to have his phone bills included as DRE.

Back to top

Agreed action

8. The Council has agreed to take the following action: -
1. review Mr D’s DRE to ensure the already agreed DRE remains accurate;
2. review all Mr D’s expenditure in line with the DRE statutory guidance considering costs relating to his disability and resulting care and support needs;
3. backdate any previously agreed unprocessed DRE to the point of identification as opposed to evidence received;
4. pay £250 in recognition of the distress and anxiety caused to Mr D and Mrs C by the failure to properly assess DRE;
5. pay £200 for Mrs C’s time and trouble in making the complaint;
6. apologise to Mr D and Mrs C for the failures identified;
7. review processes so that requests for evidence are monitored and progressed in a timely manner;
8. review processes to ensure clear accountability and ownership between the finance team and allocated social care worker for requesting and receiving evidence about DRE.
9. The Council should complete (a) to (f) within a month of the final decision and (g) to (h) within three months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Council has accepted there were faults in the way that it assessed Mr D’s DRE and the effect this has had on Mrs C and Mr D. Mrs C agrees the agreed action above is an appropriate remedy to the complaint. I have therefore closed the complaint on the basis of the agreed action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman