Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to only award her transitional protection from the impact of changes to its charging policy for 12 months. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to only award her transitional protection from the impact of changes to its charging policy for 12 months.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council reviewed and updated its charging policy. The new charging policy was implemented in December 2022. The change in policy meant Mrs X would see an increase in her care charges. However, to enable Mrs X to plan her expenditure in line with his increased contributions, the Council decided to apply a 12-month transitional protection period.
6. Mrs X was unhappy with the 12-month period awarded and considers the Council should apply a lifetime transitional protection period until her circumstances change or when she reaches pension credit age. Mrs X said if the Council would not apply this, it should instead consider allowing her a higher Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) amount under exceptional circumstances.
7. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council explained why it has applied a 12-month transitional protection period. The Council said this was an appropriate period when balance the financial impact on recipients against the impact on the Council’s budget.
8. It is at the Council’s discretion to apply transitional protection. It is not something that is required by any legislation or guidance. As the evidence shows the Council has appropriately considered exercising its discretion, and provided a clear rationale as to why it has only awarded a period of 12 months, the Council is entitled to make this decision. We cannot find fault with the Council just because Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
9. Further, the Council responded to Mrs X’s request to consider allowing her a higher MIG amount. The Council explained the MIG amounts are set by regulations and it had applied the appropriate amount based on Mrs X’s circumstances. The Council said it would not consider changes to MIG amounts on an individual basis as that would not be in accordance with its policy.
10. Council also acknowledged it had discretion to allow people to keep more of their income than just the MIG. By allowing Mrs X some DRE, the Council has exercised its discretion. Mrs X has a separate complaint about how the Council considered her DRE claim.
11. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because the Council has appropriately considered Mrs X’s request to allow her a higher amount of MIG and has provided a clear rationale for why it has not agreed to the request, and properly considered exercising its discretion regarding allowing Mrs X to keep more of her income than just the MIG. As the Council has properly considered the matter, we cannot find fault with the decision made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman