Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he should not have to pay a contribution towards his care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains prior to 2019 he did not have to pay a contribution towards his care costs and says he cannot afford to pay the amount the Council says he should pay. Mr B wants the Council to accept he cannot pay the amount it is charging him and stop invoicing him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained Mr B’s financial assessment is based on the benefits he receives, his savings, financial disregards, and essential expenditure. Three of Mr B’s benefits are included in the financial assessment, these are his pension credit, which is £64.80, his state pension which is £179.60 and his enhanced Personal Independent Payment (PIP) which is £89.60. Mr B’s enhanced PIP mobility element is not included in the financial assessment. His total weekly income of £334 is considered in the financial assessment. The Council says it has disregarded £92.04 from the total which leaves £241.99. The statutory personal allowance he is entitled to is £189 per week which leaves him with £52,99 to contribute towards his care costs. The Council explained Mr B’s care and support cost is £206.94 a week so it funds the remaining 74% of the costs.
7. The Care Act 2014 set out councils responsibilities for undertaking financial assessments and what it can charge for. It cannot charge a person more than the total of the care costs.
8. Social care-charging for care and support: Local authority circular LAC(2021)1 says what a person should be left with before charging this is called the minimum income guarantee (MIG). It says:

7(2) where the adult concerned is a single person and:

• has attained pension credit age, the amount of £189.00
1. The Council has explained taking into consideration Mr B’s income, his disregards and MIG he has £52.99 which can be used to pay for his care. This is not the full amount of his care costs but is the contribution he should pay. This is not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman