Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of the complainant’s daughter’s financial contribution to the cost of her non-residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B has complained on behalf of her daughter, Miss C, about the Council’s assessment of Miss C’s financial contribution to the cost of her non-residential care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B told us she feels the Council’s charging system is unfair. Her daughter had been receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with a night care component but this was replaced by a Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The basis for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) assessments of DLA and PIP are not the same. Mrs B has referred to the government’s guidance on charging. This says councils should try to ensure existing service users who move from receiving DLA to receiving PA are not made worse off as a result of the charging process where the level of DWP support has not changed. Mrs B said some councils are taking a different approach.
7. The Council must act within the framework of the Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014.
8. The Council has explained there is not a night component to PIP. It said it cannot identify a separate cost Miss C has incurred because of her care needs at night. The current statutory framework does not prevent councils from taking this approach. But if Mrs B can provide evidence to the Council of costs associated with her daughter’s assessed night care needs, we would expect the Council to look at this case again.
9. Mrs B raised another point in her complaint to us. She said her daughter attends a day centre for part of the week but she is charged the same amount for her service as those who attend for the full week. But this is not because of fault by the Council. It is because of the way councils must calculate a service user’s financial contribution to the service they receive. The calculation is not based on the proportion of a service a service user attends. The charges must not reduce the service user’s income below the minimum income guarantee figure which the government sets. The Council has explained in Miss B’s case, it has calculated the amount of her financial contribution which is less than the cost of her service. It pays the balance of the costs of her service. That means if the cost of the social care Miss C receives reduces but remains above her assessed financial contribution, her contribution will remain the same. It will only reduce if the cost of the service reduces below her assessed contribution. If the costs of her social care increase, Miss C would still be paying her assessed contribution.
10. We do not have powers to carry out financial assessments and to substitute our decisions for those of councils. In this case, although Miss C has experienced a significant detrimental impact on her financial situation, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed her contribution to the cost of her care service. Its calculation has allowed for her disability related expenditure. The Council has acted within the statutory framework for charging for adult social care.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman