Summary: The Complainant says the Council has increased his client contribution for adult care services, which he cannot afford to pay. The change leaves Mr C with no disposable income, but this is not caused by fault of the Council. The Council has correctly assessed his client contribution in accordance with the law and national guidance and considered whether to allow a waiver based on his income and expenditure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms B, says the Council has changed its policy for the way it calculates individual contributions towards the cost of care and support. This change means her son, Mr C, must now contribute £100 a month towards his care, which he says he cannot afford. Mr C previously did not have to contribute financially. Mr C will be unable to attend the day centre which will have an impact on both his and his mother’s mental health and wellbeing. Ms B will have no respite from her caring role. The family will not be able to cope without the support of the day centre placement, and will mean Mr C may have to move into some form of supported living/residential care as the family will be unable to cope with him continuing to live at home with no form of support.
2. Mr C has continued to attend the day centre, but his family have been paying for him and cannot continue to do so. Paying the care contribution leaves him with no disposable income to do any social activities so has a negative impact on his wellbeing, and that of his family. Mr C would like his contribution to return to nil.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Information provided by Ms B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
• Information available on the Council’s website about its change in policy for charging for adult care services.
• The Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and the Department of Health’s Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
• The response from the Council to a draft of this statement; Ms B did not respond.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C lives with Ms B, who provides all care support. The Council gives Mr C a care package; he attends a day centre five days per week and has 28 nights per year short breaks. This allows Ms B some respite from her caring role. The Council also gives Ms B £150 per year to contribute towards a recreation or leisure activity.
7. When the Council provides a care package it must assess what, if anything, the person using the service can afford to pay towards their care.
8. The Council previously had more generous financial assessment terms than recommended by national guidance. Under that regime Mr C did not have to pay anything towards his care.
9. The Council decided to change its financial assessment terms to bring it in line with national guidance. The Council consulted on the change, and the Council’s Policy Committee decided to make the changes. The Council followed the correct process to make the policy change, and its change is in line with law and guidance. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the change of policy.
10. The Council then applied the changes to Mr C’s financial assessment, which means he now must contribute over £100 per month.
11. The Council has completed a financial assessment in which it correctly disregards relevant benefits. The Council must leave Mr C with a minimum income guarantee of £151.45 per week, but it has allowed £170.23. I do not know how the Council has reached this figure, but as it is in Mr C’s favour there is no reason for me to question it further. The Council has also allowed Disability Related Expenditure of £20 per week.
12. Disability Related Expenditure is money that you spend specifically because you are disabled, so the Council gives an allowance for that. The Council allows a set figure of £20 per week, but you can ask for an assessment if you feel you spend more than this. Ms B asked for an individual assessment of Mr C’s Disability Related Expenditure, which showed it is £15.29 per week. Therefore the £20 allowed by the Council is enough.
13. The Council has discretion to allow short term waivers from collecting contributions for reasons of financial difficulty or extreme hardship. The Council has considered whether it should waive Mr C’s assessed contribution. The Council considered an Income and Expenditure form completed by Ms B which showed Mr C has enough income to pay his contribution. The Council accepts this leaves Mr C with pennies as his weekly disposable income but considers he could reduce his outgoings in some areas to give himself more disposable income.

Was there fault causing injustice?

14. The Council is not at fault in the way it has assessed Mr C’s financial contribution towards the cost of his care. It has acted in accordance with the law and national guidance.
15. The Council has correctly considered whether to allow a waiver in Mr C’s contributions by looking at his income and expenditure. As there is no fault in the way the Council has assessed this, I cannot criticise its decision even though Ms B disagrees with it.
16. I understand losing £100 of his monthly disposable income has a big impact on Mr C, and will alter his lifestyle. The contribution towards his care costs leaves Mr C with no disposable income for activities he enjoys; this is the same as anyone else living on a tight budget. Ms B feels Mr C has a limited life and should be allowed some enjoyment. It also affects his carers if there is no money to take Mr C out and occupy him on weekends. This injustice is not caused by any fault of the Council. Mr C might be able to improve his situation by seeking some money management advice to consider any areas he could reduce his expenditure and provide more disposable income for leisure activities.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation on the basis there is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman