Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s financial assessments for his contribution to care at home. He said they did not include all his disability related expenditure and his assessed weekly contribution was unaffordable. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision making or its handling of this matter

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to properly consider his disability related expenditure when making its financial assessment for domiciliary care. He also says the Council did not take account of his carer’s additional support needs.
2. He says this caused significant distress and contributed towards his need for long term residential care.
3. Mr X is represented by Mr D, in making this complaint. Mr D holds Lasting Power of Attorney for Mr X.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr D 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

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Financial assessments and Disability Related Expenditure (DRE)

8. 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)
9. 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. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
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 what should be considered a Disability Related Expense (DRE) under Annex C. The list includes:

• personal assistant costs;
• transport costs necessitated by illness or disability; and
• costs of any specialist items needed to meet the person’s disability needs.

11. The Guidance confirms the list "… is not intended to be exhaustive and any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included."

The Council’s policy

12. This sets out allowable amounts for specified DRE including privately arranged care, health needs not met by the NHS, equipment, travel costs and meals for carers.
13. Where specialist equipment is purchased, the weekly cost will be averaged over the life span of the item.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Mr X has age-related care and support needs, including dementia. Until August 2025, he lived at home, cared for by his ex-partner, Ms P. Ms P was the joint Lasting Power of Attorney for Mr X.
16. In early 2024, Mrs P contacted the Council requesting support in her caring role. The Council carried out a care and financial assessment. Mr X was assessed as having eligible care and support needs but was required to pay a financial contribution towards the cost of a home care package. Ms P decided she could not afford to pay and declined the service.
17. In January 2025, Ms P contacted the Council again because Mr X was becoming increasingly difficult to care for and she was struggling to cope. The Council agreed to provide a care package that included daily care visits and day centre access. Ms P was initially told Mrs X’s maximum financial contribution would be £221, but the actual amount would be confirmed once the care package was in place.
18. Acting on behalf of both Mr X and Ms P, Mr D queried the amount Mr X was being expected to contribute and asked the Council to take into account their joint disability related expenditure. He provided a full set of bank accounts for both Mr X and Ms D. Based on this information, Mr X’s contribution was reduced to £85 per week and backdated to when the care package started.
19. In April 2025, Mr D complained to the Council about its failure carry out fair and reasonable financial assessments, both in 2024 and 2025 and its request for excessive supporting evidence. He claimed the revised assessed contribution failed to take account of several disability related expenditures, including travel costs and the costs of meals taken whilst accessing the community. He also complained about the Council’s unhelpful and unsympathetic communications.

The Council’s position

20. In response to Mr D’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• Whilst acknowledging communications with Mr D had been strained, the Council apologised for the perceived lack of empathy.
• A significant adjustment was made to Mr X assessed charges in response to evidence provided by Mr D. This included the Council’s weekly standard allowance for a carer’s meal of £12.50 and transport costs.
• Some DRE was not allowed under the Council’s policy, including private dental care, prescription glasses and Ms P’s holiday costs.

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to carry out financial assessments, decide what contribution someone should make to their care costs, or decide whether certain expenses should be classed as DRE. Our role is to investigate the process a council followed, to assess whether it made its decision properly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.

The 2024 financial assessment

22. Mr D says Ms P struggled to cope with being Mr X’s full-time carer following the 2024 assessment. He says she only refused to accept the Council’s care package because it was unaffordable.
23. I have seen no evidence that Mr X’s assessed contributed was actively contested by Ms P at the time. She had assistance from the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux when completing the financial assessment forms and was Ms X’s Lasting Power of Attorney. Acting in that role, the Council was entitled to expect her to have the capacity to challenge an assessment. For this reason, I do not find the Council to have acted with fault.

The 2025 financial assessment

24. The case records show the Council considered Mr D’s requests for several DREs to be included in Mr X’s financial assessment. This led to a significant reduction in his assessed weekly charge that was backdated to the start of the care package. Some costs were not included, and the reasons were explained to Mr D. Although Mr D strongly disagrees with the Council’s assessment, I am satisfied the Council correctly applied its policy and acted in accordance with the relevant government guidance. This was a decision the Council the Council was entitled to make and for this reason I have not found the Council to have acted with fault. Nor have I found fault with the Council’s overall handling of the matter and how it communicated with both Ms P and Mr D. Whilst I understand Mr D is of the strongly held belief the Council has been unsympathetic and unsupportive, based on the correspondence I have seen, I am satisfied the Council responded professionally throughout the process.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I find the Council was not at fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman