Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council financially assessed her adult daughter, Miss W, who has care and support needs. She said the Council did not consider Miss W’s monthly outgoings. The Council made an error with its assessment of Miss W’s benefit entitlement but corrected this and apologised. There is no other fault in the financial assessment. The Council also delayed in acknowledging Mrs Y’s complaint but has apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about her financial assessment. She says the Council did not properly account for Miss W’s outgoings and left her without enough money. Mrs Y says the matter caused significant distress. She wants the Council to review the charges made to ensure they were correct.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers daughter’s

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for adult social care

6. Councils have a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. Councils can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17).
7. Where a council has decided to charge, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment.
8. 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 government and reviewed each year. Councils can allow people to keep more than the MIG.
9. Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care. When doing so, a council should make an assessment to allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability-related expenditure (DRE) to meet any needs it is not meeting. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure. It says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included. What counts as DRE should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support. For example, above average heating costs should be considered.

What happened

10. At the time of the matters complained about, Miss W lived in a supported living placement with a care package to help meet her assessed needs. Miss W lived in the placement between May 2024 and March 2025.
11. Mrs Y contacted the Council in September 2024 to raise concerns about how it charged Miss W. She said the Council had failed to consider the following expenses incurred by Miss W, which she said totalled £256 per month:
• Utility bills
• Accommodation service charges
• Mobile phone contract
• Internet
• Pet insurance
• TV charges
• Bus pass for support worker
12. The Council responded to Mrs Y’s concerns and said that, according to the information it had, Miss W’s total weekly income was £344.90 minus her care contribution of £109.93. This left Miss W with £236.05 per week for everyday living expenses. The Council said the weekly outgoings listed by Mrs Y amounted to £59.16 which left Miss W with £176.89 every week which was more than the MIG.
13. In March 2025, and after Miss W had left the placement, the Council completed a backdated assessment with effect from 1 July 2024. This concluded that Miss W needed to make a weekly contribution of £8.76.
14. The Council also calculated the following:
• From August 2024, the Council said Miss W’s monthly outgoings increased when she became liable to pay accommodation service charges. The Council said from this point Miss W had a nil contribution.
• From 30 September 2024 Miss W’s income had increased significantly due to an award of additional Universal Credit under the “limited capability for work” criteria. According to the Council, this resulted in a change to Miss W’s weekly income from £180.47 to £276.51. From this date, the Council said Miss W was liable to contribute £83.35 to her weekly care costs.
• From 3 February 2025, the Council amended Miss W’s weekly contribution to £53.30. The records show this was due to Miss W’s Council Tax expenditure increasing from £2 to £31.85 per week. As Miss W’s affordability changed, so did her client contribution.
15. The Council did not consider DREs when Miss W had a Care Act assessment in April 2024 because it said none were identified. However, once Mrs Y asked for DREs, the Council considered the request on 23 October 2024. This concluded:
• Additional food - not agreed
• Additional water - not agreed, already covered in service charge (without limits)
• Wifi - agreed at the tariff rate of £4.61 per week
• ‘Life 360’ app - not agreed as the free version is adequate
• Phone costs - agreed at the tariff rate £2.67
• Service charge - £92.92 agreed following the breakdown provided. This was backdated to the date Miss W started paying this.
• Support worker’s public transport - not agreed. Miss W needs to explore bus pass with ‘plus carer’ option.
16. The Council backdated the agreed DREs to May 2024 when Miss W’s care and support began.

Was there fault causing injustice in the Council’s actions?

17. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss W’s finances and DREs. While Mrs Y had expected to see all of Miss W’s costs individually listed in the financial assessment, there was no requirement for the Council to do so.
18. Under the Care Act 2014 and the statutory guidance, councils are not required to list individual everyday living expenses when carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care. Instead, the legislation says that service users must be left with a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG). This is a fixed weekly amount set by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after any care charges are applied. The MIG is intended to cover general living costs such as food, utilities, clothing, and other day-to-day expenses. These are not itemised separately in the financial assessment. This approach ensures that people keep enough income to meet essential living needs, while simplifying the assessment process in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and the statutory guidance on charging for care and support.
19. Having reviewed the relevant records, it is apparent the Council considered Miss W’s expenses and ensured she had enough money to pay for those in line with the relevant rate of MIG for her age and circumstances.
20. Mrs Y also complained that the Council’s communication with her about Miss W’s financial assessment has been confusing. She has received several invoices with different amounts – some which included credited funds. This appears to be due to changes in Miss W’s circumstances, including her benefit entitlement as well as her requirement to contribute to service charges and Council Tax. These changing factors had an impact on the assessed client contribution. The Council has already acknowledged that it made an error when initially calculating Miss W’s affordability because it thought she had a benefit award in May 2024, which was not correct. The Council corrected the error and apologised.
21. Although reading the invoices in isolation may cause confusion, records show the Council explained its approach to Mrs Y in email correspondence and in its complaint response. However, the Council’s acknowledgment of Mrs Y’s complaint was delayed. Mrs Y submitted her complaint on 21 November 2024, which the Council logged and acknowledged on 28 November. According to the Council’s complaints policy, it should have logged and acknowledged Mrs Y’s complaint within three working days. The Council has already apologised for this short delay, which I consider to be an appropriate remedy for the time and trouble caused.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for, and I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman