Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’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. Ms X’s representative complains the Council has not accepted all the items she claimed should be included in her disability related expenditure for charging purposes. She would like the Council to review its financial assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s representative complained the Council introduced a contribution she would have to pay toward her non-residential care following a review of her financial assessment in March 2023.
7. Ms X complained the Council’s assessment that she should pay £80 a week did not account for all her costs. She appealed and provided the Council with a list of expenses.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide what should or should not amount to a disability related expense. We look only at how the Council has considered the issue.
9. The Council provided a full review of its assessment, considered all the items put forward by Ms X and explained its decisions about each item.
10. Ms X’s representative argues the Council has allowed certain items and not others. However, the items that have been allowed link to Ms X’s care plan. For instance internet is allowed because Ms X needs it for online shopping. Other items have not been allowed, but they may be general leisure costs rather than a cost which is related to a disability or care need.
11. The Council has allowed some of the vitamins claimed by Ms X temporarily, although it has said other medical costs should be referred to the NHS.
12. Without evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Ms X’s requests, we cannot criticise the decisions the Council reached.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman