Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Nottinghamshire County Council (18 019 993)

Category : Adult care services > Charging

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 14 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s new policy on making contributions to the costs of home care is unfair and has caused her daughter financial hardship. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained the Council’s new policy on making contributions to the costs of home care is unfair. In particular, she complained the Council was wrong to allow pensioners a greater weekly income than people under the pension age.
  2. Mrs X also complained the Council’s decision to approve the new policy was flawed.
  3. Mrs X says the policy changes have caused her daughter financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included Mrs X’s daughter’s financial assessments, the report to the Council’s Policy Committee on how it calculated individual contributions to care and the complaints correspondence.
  3. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background and Council policy

  1. The Care Act 2014 is the over arching legislation which sets out what councils can charge people who have an assessed need for care.
  2. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out in detail how councils must apply the requirements of the Care Act.
  3. Councils have discretion to choose whether or not to charge for non-residential services. Where a council decides to charge it must do so in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations and have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
  4. Where the council has decided to charge, it must carry out a financial assessment of what a person can afford to pay.
  5. Councils can take most benefits into account including employment and support allowance (ESA), attendance allowance and some components of disability living allowance.
  6. Councils may exercise discretion to disregard some sources of income even if the law says they are allowed to take them into account when calculating a person’s contribution to their care.
  7. Councils must ensure that a person’s income is not reduced below a specified level after charges have been deducted. This is called the minimum income guarantee (MIG). The amounts are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations. However, this is only a minimum and councils have discretion to set a higher level if they wish.
  8. During the time period of this complaint the Council’s weekly MIGs were higher than the national guidance figures and were as follows:
    • people aged 18 – 24 years old = £132.45;
    • people from 25 years to under pensionable age = £151.45; and
    • pensionable age and over = £189.

The Council’s Constitution

  1. All councils have a constitution which sets out how they are governed and how decisions are made.
  2. This Council’s Constitution states the Policy Committee has responsibility for policy development and approval on all matters other than those that must be decided by a meeting of the full Council. This means the Policy Committee has the authority to approve changes to the Council’s policy relating to how it calculates the contribution a person must make to the cost of their care.


  1. Prior to November 2018, the Council’s policy on calculating the contribution to a person’s care included the following:
    • if a person received disability living allowance (around £85 a week), it disregarded £28.30 of this as income; and
    • all people, regardless of their age, had a MIG of £189.
  2. In July 2018 the Council’s Adult Social Care and Public Health Committee recommended proposals to change the Council’s policy so that it would:
    • include the full amount of a person’s disability living allowance as income; and
    • reduce the MIG for people under pension age to £170.23 from April 2019 with a further reduction to £151.45 from November 2019.
  3. These changes were designed to bring the Council’s policy more into line with national guidance.
  4. The Council held an eight week public consultation on the proposals.
  5. It sent letters about the consultation to all people who received adult social care from the Council. The Council also set up an online survey on its website and shared the link with relevant local groups and placed copies of the consultation in its libraries.
  6. The consultation finished at the end of September 2018. 1,425 people responded. The majority of people who responded were not in favour of the changes.
  7. On 8 October, the Adult Social Care and Public Health Committee considered the results of the consultation. It recommended the Council’s Policy Committee approve its recommendation that the Council introduce the new proposals.
  8. Later in October 2018, the Adult Social Care and Public Health Committee brought its report and recommendation to the Council’s Policy Committee.
  9. The report included details of the proposals, the reasons for introducing them, the consultation and its results, comments made by consultees, the number of people affected and the increased contributions some would have to pay.
  10. The Policy Committee recommended the proposals were adopted by the Council.
  11. In February 2019, the Policy Committee considered the matter further and gave its approval to implement the changes in two stages:
    • from April 2019, a partial decrease in the MIG would be introduced so that people between the ages of 18 and pensionable age would have a MIG of £170.23; and
    • from November 2019, people between 18 and pensionable age would have a MIG of £151.45.

What happened

  1. Mrs X’s daughter, Ms D, is in her 50s and is disabled. She receives care at home.
  2. Ms D receives ESA and disability living allowance.
  3. Prior to the introduction of the new policy changes, the Council’s financial assessment of Ms D showed it classed all of her ESA and £28.30 of her disability living allowance as income. It allowed her a MIG of £189. As a result, Ms D contributed £39.75 a week towards the costs of her care.
  4. Following the implementation of the new proposals, the Council’s financial assessment of Ms D showed her contributions increased to £91.72 a week. This was because the Council classed the full amount of her disability living allowance as income and decreased her MIG to £170.23.
  5. Mrs X was unhappy with these changes and in March 2019 she complained to the Council. She said it was unfair that pensioners were allowed a MIG of £189 when the MIG for younger people was lower than this. Mrs X said this was particularly unfair for Ms D as she would not live to pensionable age.
  6. The Council responded at the end of March 2019. It said that it would not consider her complaint under its corporate complaints policy because it had no power to overturn the Policy Committee’s decision to introduce the changes. The Council explained the consultation process it had carried out. It recommended Ms D complete an income and expenditure form so the Council could carry out another review of her finances to ensure her contribution was correct.
  7. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot review the merits of a council policy nor propose a change or amendment to it when it complies with national guidance and any policy changes were made without fault.
  2. The Council followed the correct procedures when it made changes to its policy. The consultation was not a binding referendum and the Council had no duty to act in line with the majority who opposed the changes. The relevant Council committee submitted a report which contained appropriate information to the Policy Committee for its consideration and subsequent approval. This was in line with the Council’s Constitution. And the proposals are in line with the national Regulations. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
  3. The result of these changes is that Ms D must now contribute more towards the cost of her care. However, there is no fault in the way the Council has assessed her finances and calculated her contribution.
  4. Mrs X says it is unfair that people under pensionable age have a lower MIG than people who receive a pension. However, this is what the law says and the Ombudsman has no power to intervene. Therefore, I will not investigation this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page