Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to change its policy on charging for adult social care and, in particular, its consultation exercise. We have not found fault with the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to change its policy on charging for adult social care.

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 Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the information on the Council’s website about the consultation exercise and the decision it has made; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr 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. The Council consulted people about proposed changes to its charging policy for adult social care between 5 November and 23 December 2018. It proposed:
• reducing the Minimum Income Guarantee from £189 a week to:
1. £132.45 for 18-24 year olds
2. £151.45 for 25-64 year olds
• taking the enhanced rate of the daily living component of the Personal Independence Payment into account (£28.30 at the time, £28.95 since April 2019).
6. Both proposals will mean many working age adults having to pay more for their care.
7. The consultation documents were available via a Council website in several formats, including large print and easy read. The Council also contacted 2,776 people directly whom it considered the proposed changes may affect. It set up a helpline to answer questions about the proposals and added a short video to the website about them.
8. The Council received 454 responses:
• 88% from individuals or families;
• 68% on easy read feedback forms;
• 58% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the Minimum Income Guarantee proposals;
• 64% disagreed or strongly disagreed with taking account of the enhanced rate of the daily living component of Personal Independence Payments.
9. Many of those who responded made specific comments about the proposed changes and the impact they would have on them and/or members of their family.
10. In January 2019, the Council’s Adult Social Care Committee considered the proposals with the responses to the consultation exercise and the findings of equality and rural impact assessments. The latter accepted the proposals could have a detrimental impact on some disabled people (around 2,400 people who would either have to pay more or would start paying for their care). The Committee decided to recommend the proposals, which the Full Council accepted in February. To mitigate the impact of the proposals, the Council decided to stage implementation over two years. The consultation exercise had proposed doing this in one year.
11. Mr X complained to the Council about its consultation exercise. He said it was flawed as:
• it was not made available to all those who may have a potential interest;
• it was unclear what the proposals were, making it difficult to provide an intelligent response;
• the proposals were contrary to the Council’s public sector equality duty as lowering the minimum income guarantee would “result in the needs of people from protected groups being less well met”;
• the Council should have consulted again over the decision to stage implementation of the changes;
• Councillors did not know the details of the phased implementation when they voted on the proposals.
12. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint it said:
• it communicated the proposals to service users or their chosen representative in various formats, including easy read, a detailed document and an eight-minute video;
• it set up a helpline and a dedicated e-mail address for feedback;
• it worked with self-advocacy organisations and disability groups to better understand the impact of the proposals;
• it accepted the proposals would have a significant impact on many people with disabilities;
• it knew the transition to the new charges would be challenging for many people from its contact with other councils which had already made the change;
• the comments from individuals also reflected this;
• it would now be phasing introduction of the changes to allow more time to manage the increased charges;
• it would make sure people could seek support over finances
• extending the implementation period did not alter the proposed charges, so there was no need to consult again;
• its proposals were in line with the Equality Act;
• it would use some of the extra income produced by the increased charges to expand/improve opportunities to access training, skills development and paid employment, in line with the wishes of disabled people.

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

13. I cannot say the Council’s consultation exercise was flawed in a way that affected the outcome. It elicited a significant number of responses, most of which were critical of its proposals.
14. I cannot rule out the possibility that some people may not have been consulted who would have had an interest in the proposals or that some people may have found the proposals difficult to understand. However, that is not necessarily evidence of fault by the Council. The consultation was open to anyone who wanted to respond and extra support was available to anyone who had difficulties understanding the proposals.
15. The Council took account of what people said about the proposed changes. Not surprisingly, they were not popular with those affected by them. However, a consultation exercise is not the same as a public vote. Having taken account of the consultation responses, the Council agreed some mitigating action, including implementing the proposals over two years, but went ahead with them nonetheless. That was something the Council was entitled to do and, without any fault, not something I can criticise.
16. The Care & Support Statutory Guidance allows the Council to use the minimum income guarantees for different age groups which it is now introducing. It also allows the Council to take account of the enhanced rate of the daily living component of the Personal Independence Payment.
17. The public sector equality duty is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It says public bodies in the exercise of their functions must have regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
18. I cannot see anything in the public sector equality duty to prevent the Council from exercising its powers under the Care Act 2014 to charge people for their care in line with the Care & Support Statutory Guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation as I have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman