Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it assessed Mr X’s finances and calculated his care charges. It considered Mr X’s capital as it was at the time of the assessment and then considered changes in his circumstances when it re-calculated his care contributions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council was at fault for the way it assessed his finances and calculated his contribution to his care charges. He says he has had to pay too much for his care because of this. He wants the Council to apologise, correct its error and reimburse his charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

7. A council has 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. A council 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)
8. 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. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
9. 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. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)
10. 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

11. Mr X received a care package at home which was arranged by the Council. Mr X lived with his wife, Mrs X. They had some expenses and savings in both of their names. In February 2024 the Council carried out a new financial assessment of Mr X. The Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome. It said he now had capital above its threshold of £23,250 and would have to self-fund his care from 2 March 2024. The Council said it would review the situation again in four weeks.
12. The Council started to charge Mr X for his care on 2 March 2024. Mr X’s daughter called the Council shortly after. She said Mr X had pending expenses which it should consider. She said Mr X owed his other daughter around £3,000 toward an energy bill, he wanted a stairlift and to go on holiday. The Council said it would need to see the energy bills and it may consider the stairlift but not the cost of the holiday. The Council said based on its calculations Mr X should be under its capital threshold again in 4-6 weeks.
13. The Council carried out a new assessment of Mr X in April 2024. It wrote to Mr X and said his self-funding period would end on 5 April 2024. It said from 6 April 2024 he would still pay a contribution towards his care. However, the Council’s financial assessment noted it had deducted the cost of Mr X’s stairlift, his energy bill, a new fridge and the care costs Mr X had paid over the last month from his capital. This totalled £5,461. The Council also deducted Mrs X’s half of their joint savings. It said Mr X’s capital was now £23,016.91. This was below its capital threshold for self-funding care so the Council said it would calculate Mr X’s care contribution by assessing his income and expenditure. After doing this and considering the minimum income guarantee, it said Mr X should pay £144.99 toward his care per week.
14. Mr X wrote to the Council after the assessment. He said he was struggling to understand how it had reached the figure for his expenses. He said the stairlift was £5,000, the fridge £335 and his electricity bill for the year was £3,318, a total of £8,653. The Council replied to Mr X with details of its calculations. It agreed the fridge had cost £335. It said the invoice for the outstanding balance on the stair-lift was £4,841 while the payment plan it had seen for the energy bill owed to his daughter was £285. This totalled £5,461. It offered Mr X a right of appeal over its decision. Mr X wrote to the Council again, reiterating that his energy bill was over £3,000.
15. The Council spoke to Mr X in May 2024. The Council again explained its calculations and said Mr X could ask for a review at any time if his circumstances had changed. Mr X and the Council continued to exchange messages over the coming months. In August 2024 the Council met with Mr X. At the meeting the Council explained its February and April 2024 calculations were correct. It said Mr X still had the same amount of capital, so it did not need to carry out a new financial assessment. Mr X queried a direct debit from the Council. The Council explained this was not for Mr X’s care and was his council tax direct debit.
16. Mr X continued to dispute the charges. The Council registered this as an appeal in September 2024. It asked Mr X for copies of his bank statements and evidence of any expenses. Mr X submitted these. In his response Mr X said the stairlift had cost £4,375. He gave details of total energy costs of around £4,000.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X in November 2024 with the outcome of his appeal. It said it had not deducted costs for the fridge, stairlift or energy bills from its February 2024 calculation as these were dated after the assessment, as follows:
• A new fridge on 3 April 2024 costing £335.
• First instalment for a stairlift on 10 May 2024 and the second instalment in June 2024. Totalling £4,375.
• 50% of the energy bill owed to Mr X’s daughter. Totalling £2,013.
18. The Council said even though officers had taken the stairlift into consideration in its original calculations, they should not have done, so it had not included the expense in its appeal response. It said based on the above Mr X was still above the threshold in February 2024.
19. It went onto explain how the fridge purchase had already come out of Mr X’s account when it assessed his finances in April 2024. It repeated it should not have included the stairlift in this assessment, but with the energy bill and care costs Mr X had paid through March his capital still went below the threshold on 5 April 2024. Mr X continued to dispute the calculation. He said he wanted the stairlift to be included and he disputed whether an assessment took place in February 2024.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X in December 2024. It said he had been awarded full council tax support on 3 June 2024. It said Mr X’s contribution to his care costs was £178.61 from the 8 June 2024. Mr X disputed the increase and complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
21. In March 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X again, explaining its calculations. It confirmed it had calculated Mr X’s contribution as £144.99 from April 2024 based on capital of £23,016.91. It also explained the basis for Mr X’s contribution of £178.61, again based on a capital level of £23,016.91 and the award of full council tax support.

My findings

22. The Council based its February 2024 financial assessment of Mr X on his capital as it was on the date of the assessment. The capital was above the threshold of £23,250 and the Council assessed Mr X as a having to self-fund his care. The Council considered an appeal from Mr X which supported its original decision. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out Mr X’s February 2024 financial assessment. The Council was not at fault.
23. Following new information from Mr X and his daughter the Council carried out a new financial assessment in April 2024. It assessed Mr X as now having capital below the threshold and needing to contribute to his care fees based on his income and expenditure. Following Mr X’s appeal there is some confusion over the correct amount for Mr X’s capital, whether to include the stairlift expense and the exact amount of Mr X’s energy bills. However, both the original financial assessment and the appeal concluded Mr X’s capital fell below the threshold in April 2024, meaning Mr X’s contribution should be £144.99 a week. While the appeal and assessments arrived at two different amounts, both amounts were under the threshold. Therefore, any fault by the Council has not caused a level of injustice to Mr X that justifies our involvement. I have discontinued my investigation into this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
24. The Council revised Mr X’s contribution in December 2024, following an award of full council tax support. While Mr X is unhappy with the revised amount, he has not appealed the calculation to the Council or provided any further information to challenge the calculation. Based on the information available, the Council considered all the information when re-calculating Mr X’s contribution. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman