Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his relative, Mr Y’s, adult social care charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his relative, Mr Y. He says the Council has made errors in Mr Y’s adult social care financial assessment and Mr Y cannot afford to pay the assessed contribution to his care. He wants the Council to write off all accrued charges and not to charge Mr Y for his care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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, or

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay.
7. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. (Care Act 2014).
8. Mr Y receives care and support at home, arranged by the Council. The Council started to charge Mr Y for his care in January 2021, following an increase in his income. Mr X complained at the time, but due to ongoing discussion and Council’s delays, he only received a final complaint response in 2023. Although Mr X had reason to complain in 2021, there are good reasons why Mr X has not brought the complaint to us sooner.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s financial assessment and there is no evidence of any errors. The Council has correctly disregarded the minimum income guarantee and Mr Y’s agreed Disability Related Expenditure. Although Mr X says the Council has not accounted for some of Mr Y’s living costs, the minimum income guarantee is designed to cover general living costs and the Council does not have to account for these separately. The minimum income amount is set by central government and so we cannot criticise the Council for this. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
10. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council stated it had recently agreed a reduction in Mr X’s weekly assessed contribution. The Council has told us it will apply this reduction with effect from January 2021 when the care charges began and amend Mr Y’s account accordingly. Further investigation by us would achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and further investigation would achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman