Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Mr X’s contributions towards the cost of his care. As Mr X is now in receipt of the mobility component of PIP I do not see there are grounds for the Council to provide an additional DRE allowance for petrol

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has unfairly increased his financial contribution towards his care. His contribution increased from £28.04 per week to £52.80.
2. Mr X brings this complaint with the support of his representative, Ms Y.

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 have:

• considered the complaint and discussed it with Mr X’s representative;
• considered correspondence between Mr X, Ms Y and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
• taken account of relevant legislation;
• offered Mr Y,an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made .

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

Care and support statutory guidance

6. This document sets out Guidance on how councils meet the terms of the Care Act 2014. It says councils can charge for care and support, except where they are required to provide it free of charge, (set out in Section 14 of the Act).
7. The Guidance says a person should not have to pay for care and support out of their capital if they have less than £14,250. It also says councils should disregard any DLA mobility component a person receives when assessing their income.
8. There are certain items of expenditure that can be deducted from a person’s income before the council decide whether a person can afford to contribute to your social care costs called Disability Related Expenditure, or DRE.Councils must take DRE into account when assessing a person’s finances. The financial assessment should set out exactly what the Council considers to be DRE.
9. If a Council takes a disability benefit into account, they must also assess disability-related expenditure in a financial assessment. This is to meet any disability-related needs not being met by them.
10. Examples of acceptable disability related costs include:

• extra washing or special washing powder and conditioner for delicate skin
• special diet
• special clothing or footwear (or extra wear and tear)
• additional bedding
• extra heating costs
• internet access
• any care that social services do not meet
• buying and maintaining disability-related equipment
• any transport costs (both for essential visits to the doctor or hospital, but also to keep up social contacts).

11. Other costs may also be accepted. Councils should not be inflexible and should always consider individual circumstances. Council should consider everything a person has to buy or pay for because of their disability. Councils should not adopt a blanket policy.
12. The Statutory Guidance states that “what is disability-related expenditure should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support”.

Background

13. Mr X has autism. He receives a direct payment from the Council to purchase services.
14. Mr X says the Council completed a financial assessment in April 2018. In doing so, it considered his disability related expenditure (DRE). Amongst other allowed expenditure, petrol to relative/carer was allowed at £28.75 per week. Mr X’s assessed contribution was calculated at £28.04 per week.
15. I have seen a copy of the letter the Council wrote to Mr X on Mr X on 17 April 2018 to confirm his assessed contribution. It confirms Mr X’s assessible income to be £271.10 per week. Total personal allowance, £151.45 per week, and allowable DRE of £91.61 per week, which included a petrol allowance of £28.75 per week. The assessed contribution Mr X needed to pay towards his care was calculated as £28.04 per week.
16. Mr X had no complaint about the assessed contribution.
17. On 16 October 2018, the Council wrote to Mr X to say his contribution would increase from 5 November 2018 to £52.80 per week. I have seen a copy of this letter and the breakdown of charges. It confirms Mr X was in receipt of the PIP enhanced mobility rate, £50.75. The Council disregarded the whole amount. The Council calculated Mr X’s assessible income to be £277.05 per week. Total personal allowance, £151.44 per week. And allowable DRE of £72.80 per week. The assessed contribution Mr X needed to pay towards his care was calculated as £52.80 per week.
18. In calculating the DRE, the Council did not allow a petrol allowance. Mr X did not understand why because his income had only increased by £5.95 since the April 2018 assessment. Mr X complained to the Council about the increase and that he had been given three days’ notice of the increase.
19. I have seen a copy of the Council’s complaint response letter dated 4 April 2019. The officer says Mr X made a successful appeal against the decision that he was not entitled to the mobility component of (PIP) from the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP). Therefore, petrol was no longer allowed as DRE as Mr X would be expected to use his mobility payments to pay for fuel. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld. Mr X’s complaint about the short notice of the increase was also not upheld. The officer said the Council usually applies any change in care charges from the date a benefit increase is awarded, even if that is a retrospective date. In Mr X’s case it had decided to apply the charge from November 2018, not October 2018, when the increase had been awarded.
20. The officer confirmed Mr X had contacted the direct payments team in January 2019 to say the increased charge was causing him financial difficulty. The Council arranged to meet with Mr X on 22 January 2019. Mr X cancelled the meeting which the Council says was “for understandable reasons”. The officer had been unable to establish if Mr X had been offered alternative arrangements to rearrange the meeting. This aspect of the complaint was upheld. The author asked Mr X “to let me know when and where we can arrange to meet with you to discuss the care charge and how it has been calculated and to support you with the affordability assessment”.

Analysis

21. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide the amount a person should contribute towards their care, or what DRE allowances should be included in a financial assessment, that is the Council’s role. The Ombudsman’s role to consider if there is any fault in the way the Council came to a decision.
22. In this case, Mr X’s contributions towards his care increased because the Council removed a DRE allowance previously allowed for petrol because he was awarded the mobility component of PIP.
23. DRE allowances are not normally given in respect of transport costs if a person receives the mobility component of PIP, unless a person can evidence their transport costs are more than the PIP mobility allowance. Mr X has not provided such evidence to the Council.
24. The Council disregards the whole amount of the PIP mobility allowance in a financial assessment, this explains the reason why Mr X’s assessible income remained largely the same between the assessment in April 2018 and October 2018.
25. I can understand it must have been a shock for Mr X to receive short notification of the increase, but the Council is entitled to backdate charges to the date of any benefit change. In this case the Council applied the increased charge from 5 November 2018, Mr X began receiving the mobility allowance on 18 October 2018. There is no fault by the Council here.
26. The Council has offered to meet with Mr X to discuss the affordability of the increased charge. I consider this a suitable response to Mr X’s claim the increased charge is causing him financial difficulty.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Mr X’s contributions towards the cost of his care. As Mr X is now in receipt of the mobility component of PIP I do not see there are grounds for the Council to provide any additional DRE allowance for petrol.
28. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman