Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to include medicinal cannabis in his disability related expenditure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to include medicinal cannabis as disability related expenditure (DRE) when assessing how much he could afford to contribute towards the costs of his care. He also says the Council lied when it told him it had spoken to his GP about this matter.
2. Mr X says that as a result, he cannot afford to pay for both his care contribution and his cannabis.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X wants the Council to include medicinal cannabis as disability related expenditure (DRE) because the NHS will not pay for it. The Council says that it has spoken to Mr X’s GP’s surgery and been informed there are cheaper alternatives available on the NHS which could be explored. It has remained silent on whether medical cannabis is something which could theoretically qualify as DRE.
7. DREs are the extra costs that someone incurs because of their disability. Examples include additional laundry costs if someone is incontinent or additional heating costs if someone’s disabilities mean they need a warmer environment. Items that the NHS provide, such as incontinent pads and medications do not form part of DREs because they can be supplied free, or via prescription. The fact the NHS cannot or will not prescribe an item, does not mean the Council must then take it into account as DRE. This is the situation in this instance with the cannabis Mr X purchases.
8. Ms X says the Council lied to him about speaking to his GP’s surgery because there are no notes on his file. However, there is nothing to indicate the Council specifically referenced Mr X in its discussions. Any general conversation with the surgery in these circumstances would not, therefore, be recorded on Mr X’s case notes.
9. Therefore, for the reasons above, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman