City of York Council (19 003 108)

Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council has failed to include all her son’s, Mr B’s, Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) in his financial assessment. This is because there is no evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mrs A says the Council should include the cost her son, Mr B incurs when providing nourishment to his Personal Assistants (PA’s) when they go out. Mrs A says the Council should include the cost of or partial cost of his telephone line rental and mobile data in his Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) as he needs telecare equipment and GPS to keep him safe. Mrs A says although Mr B does not contribute towards his care at present, this may change in the future and DRE should be properly recorded. Mrs A is concerned the Council has a blanket policy which does not take into consideration individual’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information and documentation Mrs A and the Council provided. I sent Mrs A a copy of my draft decision and discussed her comments on it with her. I considered the additional information Mrs A provided.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Council responded to Mrs A concerns about Mr B’s DRE. It explained it allows DRE where there is evidence the item claimed is purely related to a disability. It provided Mrs A with an example of this, it said ‘

‘where specific software is required to for a device to work to support a disability then the additional software cost will be allowed. DRE is allowed where the cost of an item for an individual would exceed an everyday living expense because of the disability’.

  1. The Council also explained nourishment of a Personal Assistant is not a DRE as they are paid employees. Employers have a duty to provide employees with access to clean drinking water, hot water making facilities and the means to cook and eat food. Providing food for employees is not a DRE. The Ombudsman could not say this is administrative fault.
  2. Councils must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution he or she should make to a personal budget for care. The scheme must comply with the principles in law and guidance, including that charges should not reduce a person’s income below a certain level. The Council can take a person’s capital and savings into account subject to certain conditions. If a person incurs expenses directly related to any disability he or she has, the Council should take that into account when assessing his or her finances. (Care Act 2014 Department for Health, ‘Fairer Charging Guidance’ 2013, and ‘Fairer Contributions Guidance’ 2010)
  3. The Council has explained why it will not include the items Mrs A wants it to include as DRE and there is no evidence it has a blanket policy. The Council has considered Mrs A’s request and advised why the items she wants included are not DRE. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault.
  4. Additionally, Mrs A says Mr B does not currently contribute towards his care package. So he has not suffered significant injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings