Summary: We upheld Mr Y’s complaint about a failure to provide appropriate communication support, about the charge for his care and about a poor complaint response. The Council will apologise, waive charges, complete a fresh assessment for disability expenses and make Mr Y a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress and confusion.

The complaint

1. Ms X, an advocate, complained for Mr Y that the Council:
1. Failed to provide a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter during the financial assessment process
2. Refused to use Relay (a service which helps Deaf people and hearing people communicate by phone)
3. Applied backdated care charges to his account
4. Dismissed Mr Y’s claim for disability related expenditure (DRE) (an amount in a financial assessment that reduces a person’s care charge)
5. Assigned an officer to Mr Y’s case who lacked essential communication skills
6. Did not respond fully to the complaints.
2. The Council’s fault caused avoidable confusion, distress and a financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by the parties as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X, Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments and additional documents before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice is guidance setting out the general standards we expect of councils. It says we expect councils to:
1. Deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively
2. Ensure information and advice provided is clear, accurate and complete
3. Operate an effective complaints procedure which offers a fair and appropriate remedy.
8. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
9. Councils have the legal power to charge for care. If they do so, they must carry out an assessment to determine how much the person should pay (a financial assessment). Councils can take most types of income into account including disability benefits. Kent recently changed its policy to include all rates of disability benefit. This change, along with changes to Mr Y’s income, affected Mr Y’s charge.
10. Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) are expenses that a person has to pay connected to their disability. They are an allowance in a person’s financial assessment and reduce their weekly charge. Kent has a standard DRE of £17 for everyone receiving disability benefits. People can have an individual DRE assessment if they think they have expenses higher than £17. DRE can include specialist items and services such as wheelchairs. They can include extra heating or laundry costs, equipment and aids and regular payments such as wheelchair insurance and gardening costs. Statutory guidance says:

What happened

11. Mr Y is Deaf and receives care and support from the Council. He has a direct payment (money) from the Council which he uses to arrange care and support.
12. Mr X became homeless and changed addresses over several years; staying with a relative and in temporary housing while another council dealt with his homeless application.
13. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters he has raised with us. Initially, the Council did not fully uphold all parts of his complaint and did not agree to waive the charges that had accrued. The Council’s response to his complaint said:
• It did not commission a BSL interpreter for the financial assessment as this was a desk-based assessment done by the finance team
• He should have had communication support from someone with BSL about understanding the charge
• The Council’s adult social care team would consider his requests for DRE further.
• He had now had a visit from a council officer and a BSL interpreter where the financial assessment process had been talked through and explained.
14. Mr Y was unhappy with the Council’s complaint response and complained to us in October 2024.
15. We made initial enquiries of the Council. The Council told us it had carried out a further review of the complaint and:
1. It had, through separate correspondence outside the complaints procedure, agreed to waive charges of £6256 and £1718
2. It accepted the finance team needed sensory awareness training and had delivered this in December 2024 by a Deaf community worker. An officer from the finance team was now a sensory champion and took part in best practice meetings
3. The DRE no longer applied to previous financial assessments because all charges were waived and the finance team would support Mr Y to complete a new DRE assessment
4. It would make a symbolic payment of £500 to reflect the avoidable distress and frustration and would send a further apology letter.
16. Mr Y provided me with documents to support his complaint including:
• A written record of a Relay call with a council officer. During the call, the officer explained he would need to seek confirmation from a senior officer about taking a payment from Mr Y using Relay. The officer had concerns about protecting Mr Y’s data.
• Letters and other correspondence from a different council dealing with his housing
• A copy of his DRE claim currently in progress and made since complaining to the LGSCO
• Correspondence with the finance team and with his social worker including emails from him to the social worker asking about his DRE claim.
• Financial assessments and letters for previous periods. These show the Council applied its standard DRE of £17 and told Mr X he can have an individual DRE assessment.
17. Mr Y told me when he moved to a different social work team, he had an apprentice social worker between May and July 2024. He now has a different social worker.

Findings

18. I uphold complaints (a), (c) and (f) I explain why below.

(a) The Council failed to provide a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter during the financial assessment process

19. The Council should have provided a BSL interpreter as a reasonable adjustment. The failure to do so was not in line with its responsibilities under the Equality Act and was fault causing avoidable confusion, frustration and distress. The Council has acknowledged this.

(b)The Council refused to use Relay (a service which helps Deaf people and hearing people communicate by phone)

20. The evidence indicates the Council did not refuse to use Relay but there were concerns about protecting Mr Y’s data. An officer taking care to check on council procedures with respect to data is not fault. The officer was clear about what they were doing and caution is appropriate when taking bank details over the phone. This was in line with our expectation that officers communicate in a clear and helpful way. So I do not uphold this complaint.

(c) The Council applied backdated care charges to his account

21. The Council has now resolved this issue by writing off the charges. There was fault in the failure to explain the charges without an adjustment to communication needs. This caused avoidable distress and confusion as I have described under (a). The Council has written off a very large payment. This is a more generous remedy that the LGSCO would likely have recommended to reflect avoidable distress and confusion. Our guidance suggests a payment of up to £500 in most cases. The Council’s remedy is satisfactory.

(d) The Council dismissed Mr Y’s claim for disability related expenditure (DRE)

22. The Council applied a standard DRE to Mr Y’s financial assessment. This was in line with its policy and there is no fault.
23. The Council has agreed to complete an individual assessment of DRE. This is in line with charging regulations and guidance and there is no fault.

(e)The Council assigned an officer to Mr Y’s case who lacked essential communication skills

24. The social worker was allocated to Mr Y for two to three months. This is too short a period to amount to fault or significant injustice.

(f) The Council did not respond fully to the complaints.

25. The Council’s complaint response did not provide an adequate remedy and this was not in line with our expected standards as set out in paragraph seven (c) which was fault causing avoidable confusion. In a letter post-dating Mr Y’s complaint to us, the Council agreed to waive charges, apologise, complete a fresh DRE assessment and make a symbolic payment to reflect Mr Y’s avoidable distress and frustration. These remedies are an appropriate means of remedying the injustice and a full response to Mr Y’s complaint
26. The Council has also provided relevant staff with training. This will minimise the risk of recurrence.

Back to top

Agreed Action

27. The Council will complete the actions it has offered to take within one month of my final decision. It will:
• Apologise. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make Mr Y a symbolic payment of £500
• Waive the charges of £6256 and £1718
• Complete the fresh DRE assessment and inform Mr Y of the outcome in writing.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council accepted fault and offered actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman