Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged too much for her care and did not properly take account of her need to use taxis. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, says that the Council’s charges for her care are too high. She says the Council has not taken into account the cost of private transport that she needs because of her disabilities. She says she needs to use a taxi or a community car and the costs of these should be taken into account when calculating what she has to pay. Mrs X complains she cannot afford the current charge for her care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she presented to the Council. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X is elderly and lives alone in the council’s area. Her care assessment notes that Mrs X suffers with acute anxiety. This is related to a phobia of being alone in the hours of darkness. The Council put overnight care in place every night as a result.
7. In 2019, Mrs X requested a re-assessment of her contribution to her care.
8. The Council visited Mrs X on 18 June to carry out a re-assessment. The assessment was based on Mrs X’s income, which included weekly Attendance Allowance. It concluded that Mrs X should pay £43.48 per week towards her care.
9. In October 2019 the Council carried out a further financial assessment. While doing so it realised that Mrs X was receiving a higher level of Attendance Allowance due to her night-time care. As a result, Mrs X’s income was higher than had been recorded in the previous assessment. The Council revised its calculation of Mrs X’s financial contribution. This took account of the correct income she received. It resulted in Mrs X’s charge being increased to £72.43 per week.
10. Mrs X complained about the increased charge. She told the Council she could not afford it and that she believed it had been calculated incorrectly. Mrs X asked the Council to take account of costs she incurred fixing her driveway and replacing a fence.
11. An officer visited Mrs X on 2 December 2019. The benefits officer concluded that the charge was correct.
12. Following this visit, Mrs X contacted the Council to ask that additional expenses were taken into account. She stated she had increased transport costs as she had to use Taxis. She provided taxi receipts to the Council.
13. In January 2020 the Council wrote to Mrs X. It explained the reason her contribution increased was to take account of the higher amount of Attendance Allowance she received. In its response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council acknowledged it should have identified the higher rate of Attendance Allowance sooner. This meant Mrs X was undercharged for her care prior to October. The Council agreed not to backdate the increase. However, it had to charge the correct amount.
14. The Council also responded to Mrs X’s request for her travel costs to be taken into account. The Council stated the information she provided had been considered by a senior manager. However, they noted Mrs X chose to use taxis rather than public transport. As the use of taxis was not caused by a physical disability, they could not be taken into account. The Council noted government guidance ensured all claimants had an age-related minimum income amount which Mrs X had.
15. Mrs X was not content with this response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council

16. The Council is obliged by law to take Attendance Allowance into account when considering what a person can afford to pay. Correspondence provided by the Council shows it also followed Department of Health guidance in assessing the affordability of Mrs X’s care charges.
17. The Council was wrong when it undercharged Mrs X and did not take full account of her Attendance Allowance. However, this error only benefitted Mrs X. It caused no injustice to her. The decision that Mrs X complained about – the increase to Mrs X’s contribution to her care - was correctly made and does not constitute fault. The Council had to take account of the full amount of Mrs X’s Attendance Allowance.
18. Mrs X provided some evidence that she used taxis, but the receipts did not show for what purpose and some were not dated. I recognise Mrs X says she needs to use a Taxi or community vehicle. However, the assessment of Mrs X’s needs confirms that Mrs X does not have a physical disability that means she has a need to use taxis. The Council decided that it could not reduce her contribution to her care due to her taxi costs as this was not a disability related expense. This decision was in line with the Council’s guidance. There is evidence the decision was made properly.
19. The Ombudsman cannot act as an appeal body and overturn decisions that the council has made correctly. There is no fault in the way the Council has considered Mrs X’s care contributions, so I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman