Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s personal expenses allowance. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained about how the Council assessed his mother’s, Ms X’s personal expenses allowance (PEA). He said the weekly PEA of £24.90 was not enough for her to buy items she needed such as batteries for her hearing aids; incontinence pads; toiletries and chiropody and hairdresser visits.
2. He said that was having a financial impact on the wider family who were having to buy items for Mrs X.

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 an organisation’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. 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, and
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. People in a care home will contribute most of their income, excluding their earnings, towards the cost of their care and support. However, a local authority must leave the person with a specified amount of their own income so that the person has money to spend on personal items such as clothes and other items that are not part of their care. This is known as the personal expenses allowance (PEA). This amount is set by the Government. It is currently set at £24.90.
8. After Ms X moved into a care home, Mr Y appealed to the Council about the amount of PEA that she was left with, saying that she could not afford essential items. He said the incontinence pads and hearing aids provided by the NHS did not meet Ms X’s needs. Mr Y said the Council had also failed to properly consider Ms X need for other items such as clothing, toiletries, biscuits, clothing, the hairdressers and access to a mobile telephone.
9. In the Council’s response it explained it contracted the care home to meet all of Ms X’s eligible care needs and that:
• Mrs X’s incontinence pads should be provided by the care home. It said it would address this with the care home if that was not taking place.
• The NHS audiology department should provide Mrs X with a hearing aid that meets her need and the appropriate batteries.
• Mrs X could use the landline at the care home to make personal calls and that the mobile phone was a personal choice to purchase.
• All nutritional needs were met by the care home.
• Clothing was taken into consideration when calculating the PEA.
10. The Council did accept that access to a chiropodist was a basic need and it added an additional £3.75 to Mrs X’s personal allowance for this. It apologised for not recognising this sooner.
11. Although Mr Y is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint further. In response to my enquiries, the Council has confirmed it is backdating the cost of Mrs X’s chiropody visits to the date she entered care in July 2021 and will apply a credit of £158.03 to her account. I am satisfied that is a suitable remedy and there is no outstanding injustice.
12. In respect of the Council’s consideration of the other items, the Council has explained why these are ineligible. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman