Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr E disagrees with the Council’s assessment of what his wife, Mrs E, should pay towards her residential care costs. Mr E explains they cannot afford the care costs and other associated costs of Mrs E’s move. Mr E visits every day which means he is using a lot more petrol than when they lived together. Mrs E is incontinent and so they are buying more clothes and toiletries than they used to. Mr E explains they are struggling financially.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered relevant law and statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law allows councils to charge for adult social care it arranges. Charges are means tested based on a person’s financial resources. There is law and guidance which a council must follow when completing a financial assessment to decide what, if anything, someone should pay.
8. The Council has completed a financial assessment based on law, guidance, and its own policy. People in council arranged residential care, like Mrs E, are left with a minimum amount of income after their care charges to spend as they wish on personal expenses. This is the personal expenses allowance (PEA) and is set by government, not the Council. This is currently £28.25 per week, and it is this money which should fund Mrs E’s toiletries and clothes. The Council has advised Mr E to contact his MP if he considers the PEA is not enough to meet a person’s needs.
9. Mr E is on benefit income and is struggling financially with the added petrol expenses and rises in cost of living, and his wife’s income now used for care. The Council has advised Mr E to speak with his MP if he considers his benefit income is not enough. The Council has also suggested Mr E seek financial advice to ensure he is maximising his income.
10. While I have sympathy with Mr E’s circumstances, it is not our role to say whether the decision the Council made is correct, our focus is on the decision-making process. The Council has followed the correct process to reach its decision on how much Mrs E should pay toward her care charges, so it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find evidence of fault. The Ombudsman cannot question the outcome, even though Mr E strongly disagrees with it. The Council has correctly advised Mr E on seeking financial advice and contacting his MP.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr E’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman