Summary: Ms M complained about how the Council assessed her adult son, Mr S’s financial contribution towards his social care. She said it did not consider the £400 he contributed monthly to household costs. In addition, she said his mobility allowance was not sufficient to meet his transport costs to and from college. We find the Council was at fault for not considering his monthly contribution to the household in the financial assessment. It was not at fault in how it considered his transport costs. The Council has amended Mr S’s financial assessment. That remedies any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms M complained about how the Council assessed the affordability of her adult son, Mr S’s financial contribution towards his adult social care. She said his contribution was too high and did not consider the £400 he contributed monthly to household costs. In addition, she said his mobility allowance was not sufficient to meet his transport costs to and from college. She said the Council’s assessment would cause the family financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

• I referred to the Care Act 2014 statutory guidance.
• I read Ms M’s complaint to the Council and its response.
• I saw Mr S’s financial assessment, his care needs assessment and care plan.
1. Mrs M and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care and support plans

5. Councils must assess anybody in their area who appears in need of care services. Following an assessment, the Council must decide which needs are eligible for their support. If the Council provides support, it must produce a written care plan. The support plan may include a personal budget which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
6. The Council can charge an adult for the care and support specified in the care plan. The Council completes a financial assessment to determine the maximum weekly contributions it will ask the person to pay. The Council must consider certain types of income when completing the financial assessment. That includes benefits such as the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA). It must disregard other income such as the mobility element of the PIP allowance.
7. After charging, a person must be left with the minimum income guarantee (MIG) to pay for their daily living costs such as food, rent and utilities. The amount is dependent on a person’s age and personal circumstances and is set by Government.

Direct payments

8. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for one to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They provide independence, choice and control by enabling people to commission their own care and support to meet their eligible needs.

Disability related expenditure

9. Disability related expenditure (DRE) are additional living costs a person may have that arise from a disability or long-term health condition. The Council’s policy sets out what it will consider as DRE such as specialist washing powders; clothing; additional bedding costs and additional transport costs relating to work or day centres. The Council considers additional DRE on request.

Non-dependants

10. A non-dependant is someone aged over 18 who lives at home but is not a tenant or lodger; such as an adult son or daughter. The Council’s policy on Council Tax Support and Housing Benefit states it expects a non-dependants to make a financial contribution to living with relatives and makes deductions from these benefits accordingly. For a non-dependant over the age of 25 receiving Employment Support Allowance, the Council deducts £15.85 weekly from the relatives Housing Benefit.

Background

11. Mr S lives with his mother, Ms M and step-father. Mr S is in his mid-thirties and has learning disabilities meaning he needs support with his daily living. Ms M is his primary carer. Ms M also cares for her husband who is paraplegic.
12. Mr S has attended college for several years. Initially that placement was funded through education services however that funding stopped after two years. In 2018, Ms M asked the Council to complete an assessment of needs for Mr S to support his place at college. Following assessment, the Council agreed to support Mr S through direct payments; the Council stopped these in 2019. Ms M told me that was because the Council said she was not spending the direct payments as agreed.
13. Mr S returned to college in September 2019. The Council completed a financial assessment to determine Mr S’s contribution towards his college costs.

The financial assessment

14. This shows that Mr S had a weekly income of £238.00 comprising of the daily living and mobility component of PIP and ESA. The Council’s assessment disregarded the mobility component of PIP. It allowed Mr S a weekly allowance of £5.77 towards heating, utilities and insurance costs.
15. Based on information provided by Ms M, it allocated a weekly allowance of £7.59 for DRE for additional washing and shoes. It applied the MIG of £151.45. After those expenditures were deduced from his weekly income, it assessed Mr S as being able to pay 49.99 to his weekly care costs (college fees).
16. The Council’s case records show it understood that Ms and Mr M received full housing benefit; therefore, it decided not to apply the non-dependant deduction to Mr S’s financial assessment.

Ms M’s complaint to the Council

17. Following the assessment Ms M complained Mr S could not afford the contribution. She stated the household was completely reliant on state benefits and could not afford to make the contributions. She said Mr S could afford £25 a week.
18. The Council responded and explained how it had completed the financial assessment. It provided information about DRE and said it would consider further expenditure if she felt there were disability related costs it had not already considered.
19. Mrs M did not provide further information or evidence of DRE costs to the Council.

My findings

20. I have reviewed how the Council completed Mr S’s financial assessment. That financial assessment did not make a financial allowance to reflect that Mr S would be expected to contribute towards living with his relatives consistent with wider Council policies. That was fault. During my investigation the Council agreed to apply the non-dependent deduction of £15.85 to Mr S’s financial assessment and backdate that to the date it completed the assessment. That remedies any injustice caused.
21. The Council has not considered Mr S’s petrol costs incurred by his attendance at college. However, I have seen no evidence Ms M has requested the Council to consider these costs as DRE. The Council has stated it is happy to consider any additional transport costs Mr S incurs because of attending college. It states Ms S would need to provide details of the costs and provide relevant evidence for it to consider these costs. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider Mr S’s financial contributions to living at home. It was not at fault for how it considered petrol costs for attending college. The Council has already amended Ms S’s financial assessment. That remedies any injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman