Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council in confirming that it no longer included household expenses in its financial assessments. The Council was at fault for delays and for failing to properly consider household expenses as part of a financial assessment. The Council agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about delays by the Council in confirming that it no longer included household expenses in its financial assessments.
2. Mrs X handles financial matters for her adult son, Mr Y. Mr Y has care and support needs and receives a package of care commissioned by the Council.
3. Mrs X challenged Mr Y’s financial assessment from March 2021 because she thought the amount allowed for household expenses was too low.
4. She said it took the Council until November 2021 to review the situation. The Council then said household expenses had not been included in financial assessments for several years. Mrs X said this was despite the Council including household expenses in Mr Y’s last two financial assessments. Mrs X said this was the Council’s error and was only corrected because she asked for a review.
5. Mrs X complained the Council failed to confirm the position straight away and could have saved her nine months of unanswered emails and unreturned calls. This resulted in wasted time and effort, frustration, stress, and debt.
6. Mrs X said Mr Y is now playing catch up, paying more each month until old invoices are cleared. This means he cannot afford to contribute towards household expenses as he always has done.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
9. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
11. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
12. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

13. Councils have a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
14. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
15. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)
16. The purpose of the MIG is to promote independence and social inclusion and ensure people have enough funds to meet basic needs, like buying food, utility costs or insurance. This must be after any housing costs, like rent and council tax. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex C, Section 49)

What happened

17. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
18. Mr Y lived with his parents and was dependent on them to meet his care and support needs. Mr Y had regularly attended day services for several years. Mrs X helped Mr Y with his finances.
19. In 2016, Mrs X asked the Council if it would allow Mr Y to contribute £90 a week towards household costs. The Council agreed and recorded this as household expenditure on Mr Y’s financial assessment. This agreement continued to be in place until 2021.
20. Mrs X and a case officer discussed Mr Y’s financial assessment in March 2021. Mrs X said Mr Y pays £300 every two weeks for rent and bills. The case officer said the Council allowed £90 for rent in Mr Y’s last assessment. The Council’s records state Mrs X agreed for this to remain the same.
21. The case officer confirmed Mr Y’s maximum charge would be £45.30. The Council sent an assessment letter to Mrs X, confirming this, on 5 March 2021.
22. Mrs X telephoned the Council twice in May 2021 to query Mr Y’s financial assessment. She did not agree with an invoice she received for his care and support charges, because they had increased.
23. A different case officer told Mrs X the increased contribution was because of an increase in Mr Y’s employment support allowance and personal independence payments. The officer said the Council kept rent at £90 as previously agreed and that food and clothing costs need to come out of Mr Y’s remaining money.
24. Mrs X emailed the Council on 21 June 2021. She said the household costs of £90 the Council allowed should not be the same as 5 years ago, due to increases in the cost of living. She said Mr Y gives her £150 a week and has bank statements to confirm this.
25. The Council replied on 2 August 2021. It said because Mrs X could not advise if Mr Y’s housing costs had increased, they were kept at £90 per week for rent as previously allowed for.
26. Mrs X emailed the Council on 12 October 2021. She said she had been in contact with finance officers since April, and had asked for a reassessment as she believes the figures are not correct.
27. The Council said it included rent at £90 a week for Mr Y’s household expenditure. It said this should represent the amount Mr Y pays which his housing benefit does not cover. It also asked what Mr Y pays for water and contents insurance.
28. Mrs X said Mr Y’s household expenses are £150 a week and she could provide bank statements as evidence. She said Mr Y does not receive housing benefit, he lives with Mrs X and her husband, who are both pensioners. They pay all household bills and Mr Y contributes to them.
29. A case officer emailed a manager for advice. They said Mrs X was asking the Council to include £150 per week for household expenses. However, the officer said they thought the Council’s earlier decision to allow household expenses was an error. They said the Council does not usually allow household expenses for somebody living with parents unless it is a single parent on benefits. The officer recognised expectations had been raised, and that Mr Y’s parents are pensioners.
30. The manager said the Council cannot justify this expenditure without further assessment. They queried whether Mrs X was pursuing the remaining £60, as she suggested they may accept continuing to receive £90.
31. The Council referred Mr Y for a new financial assessment. It conducted the assessment with Mrs X by telephone on 25 November 2021. A case officer told Mrs X no household expenses were included as Mr Y lives with his parents. They advised the Council should not have included this in previous assessments and would only allow household expenses for someone living with a single parent on benefits.
32. The Council assessed Mr Y must contribute £136.75 a week towards the cost of his care, backdated to 19 October 2021.
33. Mrs X complained on 2 December 2021. When she did not receive a response, she resent her complaint on 13 December 2021:
• She said Mr Y’s March 2021 assessment did include household expenses. She disputed the figure because it was out of date. She said she just wanted a quick reassessment to change the household expenses figure, but was passed from pillar to post, and had to go through a full reassessment, only to be told household expenses are not included in the assessment.
• She asked the Council what the justification was for not including household expenses in Mr Y’s assessment, and why she had not been told before.
• She said she spent most of the year trying to get a reassessment for Mr Y because the figure allowed for household expenses in the March 2021 assessment was wrong. She asked why the Council had only now told her the figure she was challenging is no longer relevant.
• She said the Council’s policy of excluding household expenses for people with learning difficulties living at home, compared to sheltered accommodation, is grossly unfair.
34. In June 2022, Mrs X sent an appeal to the Council about its decision to increase Mr Y’s contribution to his care and support charges. She referred to her complaint from December 2021. Rep said, despite an acknowledgement email on 10 January 2022, which she said the Council had still not responded to.
35. The Council replied on 3 August 2022. It said:
• Housing allowances are usually only allowed for a householder or someone who has household bills in their name. It said the only situation where is allows a claim for household costs is if someone lives with a single relative who is on benefits.
• None of the above applied to Mr Y, so the £90 the Council originally allowed for rent was wrong.
• Mrs X’s request for the £90 allowance to be increased went to a senior manager, who rejected it and said the £90 allowance should be removed as it was not properly authorised and should not be allowed.
• Mr X benefitted from the incorrect allowance, but it would not make any retrospective adjustments.
36. Mrs X remained dissatisfied. She said she complained about the Council’s error over household expenses, not about the fact it increased or backdated Mr Y’s charges. She also disputed the Council had repeatedly told her it mistakenly applied the household allowance. Mrs X said she accepts the Council’s apology, but it had not made up for the stress and wasted time over the past 18 months trying to resolve matters. She said Mr Y should not be accountable for the Council’s errors.
37. The Council sent its final response on 26 September 2022. It apologised for the extended delays. It agreed it should have been more diligent in its account management process and should have completed actions in a timelier manner. It said sorry for any undue stress or anxiety this caused.

My investigation

38. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it accepts there were delays confirming it could no longer include household expenses in Mr Y’s financial assessments. It recognised it failed to clarify its approach at the earliest opportunity.
39. The Council said housing expenses can be included in a financial assessment, but only where the customer is a householder or a householder with some or all bills in their name. The Council may also allow a claim for household costs where a customer lives with a single relative who is on benefits.
40. The Council told me Mrs X provided confirmation in 2016 of Mr Y’s liability to pay rent. However, it recognised it removed household expenses after its recent assessment without asking Mrs X for renewed evidence of liability. It said it should have continued with the allowance while it contacted Mrs X for evidence.
41. The Council also recognised the need for clarity and said it will amend its policy and guidance.

Analysis

42. The Council recognised it was responsible for delays and that it should have clarified its approach sooner. That was fault. This caused frustration to Mrs X, and she also incurred time and trouble chasing the Council to resolve matters.
43. I found there was a lack of consistency from officers about the Council’s approach. The Council allowed the inclusion of household costs at the start, and allowed the costs to continue. When Mrs X sought a higher amount, officers told her she had not provided confirmation of increased costs, and asked about Mr Y’s contribution to utilities. However, a different officer then questioned whether household costs should have been included from the outset. And during Mr Y’s reassessment an officer told Mrs X the Council could not include household costs.
44. I also found that, rather than rejecting Mrs X’s request, a manager said it would be subject to assessment. Yet when the Council carried out the assessment it accepts it did not ask Mrs X for evidence of Mr Y’s household costs. That was fault.
45. The Council’s stance is that Mr Y has no legal responsibility to pay rent or household bills. It therefore decided not to allow for Mr Y’s contribution to household expenses.
46. I found the Council’s policy did not include specific details about how it calculates the MIG. It did not say in what circumstances household costs will be allowed, nor did it say someone must have a legal responsibility for rent or bills.
47. The Council is at fault here. It is not correct that Mr Y’s contribution to household costs cannot be included. Mr Y is a non-dependent, an adult living at home who is not a tenant or lodger. His parents are not responsible for supporting him.
48. The Government guidance says only that the MIG must be applied after any housing costs, such as rent or council tax. It does not say there must be a legal responsibility for rent or bills, nor does it say someone must be a homeowner, have a rental agreement, or have bills in their own name.
49. The purpose of the MIG is to promote independence. Mr Y should be able to contribute a fair amount to the combined household expenses including such costs as rent, utilities, maintenance, and food. Mr Y may not have a legal obligation to pay housing costs, but he should be left with the MIG after any contribution to housing costs has been considered. It is for the Council to decide how to do that. It should review its policy in order to consider this.
50. The decision to remove the allowance for household expenses caused frustration. It led to a debt being accrued which caused distress and worry about how Mr Y could afford to pay the debt and current costs.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr Y and Mrs X in writing, setting out the fault identified above and the actions it will take to address this.
• Pay £90 per week to Mr Y for the time where the £90 allowance for household expenses was not allowed. This applies from the last time the allowance was allowed, to the date of my final decision. The Council may use this to reduce any outstanding debt owed by Mr Y.
52. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will:
• Review its policy on contributions to care and support charges, giving consideration to how it will ensure non-dependents can contribute to household costs.
• Ensure that Mr Y/Mrs X receive clear information about how Mr Y is expected to make a fair contribution to the household costs going forward.
• Review its communication around charging in this case and ensure staff are clear in future about how it allows for non-dependent’s household contributions.
• Ensure staff clearly record the reasons for any charging decisions.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for delays and for failing to properly consider household expenses as part of a financial assessment. The agreed actions are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman