Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X, the complainant, says the Council completed a financial assessment for his son, Mr Y, and assessed he had enough income to contribute towards his care plan expenses. Mr X says the Council has not considered all of Mr Y’s living expenses and feels the Council’s policy disincentivises those who need help from asking for it. Mr X wants Mr Y’s housing, energy and general maintenance costs to be considered as disability related expenditure (DRE).

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 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))

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. Councils must assess and meet eligible care needs of adults living in its area in need of care and support. Where a council is meeting eligible care and support needs it must assess what, if anything, the person can pay for that support. Councils follow rules set by government and their own policies on charging for care.
7. The Council carried out a financial assessment for Mr Y to assess his contributions towards his care plan. The Council’s policy states that it must meet the government’s minimum income guarantee (MIG), which means it must leave someone with enough money to meet their living expenses after the contributions have been taken. The Council has explained how it calculated Mr Y’s assessed contributions, and I can see that it has done so in line with its policy and has met the MIG. It also excluded anything it considered DRE from its calculations.
8. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment and feels that Mr Y’s general living costs should be considered DRE and therefore excluded from its assessment. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot tell the Council what should or should not be included in its financial assessment. Since the Council has acted in line with its policy, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it has made its decision, we are not in a position to challenge the Council’s assessment. The Council also asked Mr X to submit any evidence of Mr Y’s DRE so it could review this, but Mr X did not do this. This is still open for Mr X to do.
9. Mr X also says the Council has wrongly decided to exclude holidays as DRE, which he feels are beneficial for his son. However, the Council has explained that it does not consider the trips as DRE, as their purpose is not exclusively to benefit Mr Y but also used an opportunity to visit extended family.
10. As a general principle people are expected to cover their normal living and discretionary expenses from the income allowed under the MIG. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council made its decision based on a correctly carried out assessment. The Ombudsman cannot therefore question the Council’s decision and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman