Summary: The Council failed to assess Mr Y’s disability related expenditure when it completed a financial assessment of him in 2017. The Council has acknowledged this and has agreed to apologise, waive any charges for that period and reimburse monies Mr Y paid.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the process and outcome of a financial assessment the Council completed of her adult son, Mr Y, from 2017 onwards.

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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• considered the complaint and discussed it with Mrs X;
• considered the correspondence exchanged between Mrs X 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 Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

Care and support statutory guidance

5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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).

10. 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.
11. The Statutory Guidance states that “what is disability-related expenditure should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support”.

What happened

12. Mr Y has a learning disability. He lives in supported living. Mrs X supports Mr Y to manage his finances.
13. In February 2017 the Council completed a financial assessment of Mr Y. Disability related expenditure (DRE) was not considered. Prior to this Mr Y did not have to contribute to the cost of his care.
14. Mrs X says a council officer told her that the maximum contribution Mr Y would pay was likely to be around £33 per week. The assessment concluded Mr Y had to contribute £54 per week.
15. Mrs X was concerned about the charge. She pursued the matter with the Council for two years with no satisfactory conclusion. A substantial debt accrued. In August 2018, Mrs X paid £3,000 off the debt from Mr Y’s savings. Mrs X told the Council Mr Y had insufficient funds to pay the remaining amount.
16. In March 2019, Mr Y was allocated a new social worker, Mrs X says the social worker ‘is very good’, it was he who realised no DRE had been accounted for in previous financial assessments.
17. In July 2019 a new financial assessment was started. Mrs X provided information about DRE and hand delivered the form back to the Council in the first week of August 2019. The outcome concluded Mr Y had to contribute £4.96 per week towards his care. The Council did not backdate the DRE.
18. Mrs X has not paid the revised weekly contribution because the Council continues to send financial statements showing the previous outstanding debt of £5,803.42.
19. Mrs X has continued to complain, she says the Council reassured her in July 2019 it would amend the statements, but it has not done so. The Council issued a statement dated 28 November 2019, which Mrs X received on 2 December 2019, still showing the debt.
20. Mrs X recently spoke to an officer in social services who reassured her he had spoken to the Council’s financial team and the statements will be amended.
21. Mrs X says she was very reluctant to complain to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s response to my enquires.

The Council responded swiftly to my enquires and acknowledged it failed to ascertain if Mr Y had any DRE in 2017. It confirmed Mrs X had contacted the Council about this in 2017. It says it would like to “take this

opportunity to apologise for the service that she has received, and we have identified the failing during this time. ECC have identified this as an area of development and stronger links are to be made with the Young People with Disability Team, to ensure that the financial assessment element is

22. completed and the DRE identified before the case is transferred to adult social care”.
23. The Council confirms it did not re-calculate the contribution after the DRE was assessed in July 2019, and that it should have done so. It apologises for this.
24. The Council acknowledges it should not have continued to send monthly statements whilst they were being disputed. It apologises for this.
25. The Council also accepts the time it has taken to action the backdated refund and apologises for this.
26. The Council has agreed to waiver all charges for the period 2017 to July 2019 and will refund Mr Y any payments he made.
27. The Council would like to offer Mrs X a written apology and £150 in acknowledgment of the time and trouble she has been put to pursuing this matter.
28. The Ombudsman welcomes the Council’s response and the action it proposes.

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed to:

• waive all charges paid between 2017 to July 2019
• apologise to Mrs X for the time and trouble she has been put to pursuing this matter with the Council and with the Ombudsman, and pay her £150 in acknowledgment of this;
• undertake training and development of officers where necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council acknowledges this and has proposed the above remedy. I consider this a suitable way to settle the complaint.
31. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman