Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with her son’s disability related expenditure, resulting in the charge for his care increasing from £18.88 to £34.35 a week, which he cannot afford. The Council is not at fault over the way it has dealt with the son’s assessed charge.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council has failed to deal properly with her son’s disability related expenditure, resulting in the charge for his care increasing from £18.88 to £34.35 a week which he cannot afford.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs X’s son, Mr Y, has Downs Syndrome and lives with her. When the Council did a financial assessment in 2016, it decided he could afford to pay £18.88 a week towards his personal budget of £291.98. In line with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance, the Council disregarded the mobility component of his Personal Independence Payment (£57.45) and income of £151.45 a week. It also disregarded disability related expenditure of:
• £3.50 for chiropody;
• £1.80 for extra laundry;
• £12.60 for extra cleaning products;
• £3.50 for gardening;
• £12.00 for home help;
• £3.62 for a call system/lifeline.
6. Towards the end of 2017 the Council consulted people about proposed changes to client contributions for adult social care.
7. In August 2018 the Council wrote to Mrs X about the changes it was making to disability related expenditure from 1 October. It said it would no longer routinely apply some allowances and would only consider them on an exceptional basis, including:
• Gardening; and
• Cleaning products.

It said no allowance would be made for private home help (e.g. cleaning).

8. The Council updated Mr Y’s financial assessment in September and wrote to Mrs X. It said he would have to pay £46.98 a week towards the cost of his care. It took account of disability related expenditure of:
• £3.50 for chiropody;
• £1.80 for extra laundry;
• £3.62 for a call system/lifeline.
9. When Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision, it updated the figures for Mr Y’s benefits income and made changes to his disability related expenditure:
• £10.00 for extra cleaning products;
• £3.76 for extra laundry;
• £3.50 for chiropody;
• £1.92 for extra bedding;
• £5.77 for special/extra clothing.

This reduced his weekly charge to £36.35.

10. Following a telephone call from Mrs X in January 2019, the Council agreed to include £2 a week for a tumble drier as disability related expenditure. This reduced Mr Y’s weekly charge to £34.35. It noted Mrs X had recently agreed to have her own needs assessment because of her health problems. It said it would contact her to do this.
11. Mrs X complained that she could not afford to pay the assessed charge. She pointed out that she has her own health problems and has been told not to drive, which means she must use taxis to take her son to his activities.
12. When the Council replied in April, it pointed out the assessed charge needs to come from her son’s income, not her own. It said it had taken account of his income and disability related expenditure. It suggested speaking to his social worker about the increased need to use taxis “to explore alternative options of travel to activities”. It said it had recently tried contacting Mrs X to assess her own needs and invited her to get in contact to arrange this.
13. Mr Y’s care and support plan says Mrs X meets most of his needs. It says his mother and family manage all the housework and any maintenance within the home. The Council provides a personal budget to:
• attend day services four days a week (including a health club);
• employ a personal assistant to take him out for three hours a week;
• pay for three weeks of residential respite a year.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

14. There is no evidence of fault by the Council over the way it has assessed Mr Y’s finances. It has taken account of his income and disregarded the mobility component of PIP and his disability related expenditure. Mrs X has not identified any expenses the Council has failed to take account of. The Council no longer makes allowance for gardening, domestic cleaning or a call system/lifeline. But Mr Y does not pay for them.
15. The Council has offered to assess Mrs X’s needs. It has also suggested she speak to her son’s Social Worker about identifying alternative forms of transport to his activities, which could reduce his spending on taxis. But that will not affect his weekly charge.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman