Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his financial assessment. Mr X complains the Council refused some of his requested disability related expenditure, refused to appoint him an independent advocate to help him with the financial assessment process, and about the minimum income guarantee amount used. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his financial assessment. In particular, he complains:
• The Council has refused some of his requested disability related expenditure.
• Council refused to appoint him an independent advocate to help him with the financial assessment process.
• About the minimum income guarantee amount used in the financial assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X previously made a complaint to us about the Council’s refusal to appoint an independent advocate to help him with the financial assessment. We closed the complaint in May 2023. It is not clear whether Mr X’s complaint now is regarding a new financial assessment.
7. However, the Council has confirmed it has signposted Mr X to various advocacy services. Further, the Council said Mr X did receive help from an advocate to help him with his disability related expenses.
8. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault. This is because we are not likely to find fault as the Council has appropriately signposted Mr X to advocacy services and it appears Mr X did engage with an advocacy service.
9. Mr X is unhappy with the minimum income guarantee (MIG) amount the Council used in his financial assessment. Mr X says the MIG for claiming employment support allowance is higher than the amount used in his financial assessment.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has followed what is required by the Care Act 2014 and the care and support (charging and assessment of resources) regulations 2014. These set out that councils must leave individuals with the MIG each week, and this amount is set out by the government each tax year.
11. Finally, Mr X is unhappy that the Council has not agreed all the disability related expenditure (DRE) he requested. DRE is where an individual has to pay extra costs due to their disability. It is for the Council to decide what it considers to be DRE.
12. In this case, the Council has considered the list of DRE Mr X requested. The Council explained that it rejected some of the claimed expenses because it needed more supporting evidence from Mr X. The Council confirmed it will reconsider the expenses once Mr X provides the further evidence required.
13. Further, other costs have been rejected either because the Council did not consider them to be expenses incurred to meet Mr X’s individual care and support needs, or because there were costs that he would incur irrespective of his disability.
14. An investigation is not justified as the Council has properly considered Mr X’s request before making its decision. The Council has provided a clear rationale for why it has refused some of the costs Mr X has requested. As the Council has made its decision properly, we could not find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman