Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 013 265)

Category : Adult care services > Charging

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 27 Mar 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to allow him his Minimum Income Guarantee by not considering his full Disability Related Expenses when calculating his non-residential care costs. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to allow him his Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) by failing to consider his full Disability Related Expenses (DRE) when calculating his non-residential care costs.
  2. Mr X says this has resulted in the Council charging him £85.19 for his non-residential care costs which he cannot afford.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
  2. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Financial assessments and Disability Related Expenses

  1. The Care Act 2014 (‘the Act’) introduced a requirement that local authorities should promote ‘wellbeing’ and signifies a shift from existing duties on local authorities to provide particular services, to the concept of ‘meeting needs’. The concept of meeting needs recognises that everyone’s needs are different and personal to them. Local authorities must consider how to meet each person’s specific needs rather than simply considering what service they will fit into. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Chapter 1), (‘The Guidance’)
  2. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it must prepare a care and support plan. This must set out the needs identified in the assessment. It must set out a personal budget which specifies the cost to the local authority of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute and the amount the council must contribute. (Care Act 2014, section 26)
  3. The Guidance sets out what should be considered a Disability Related Expense (DRE) under Annex C. The list includes:
    • any heating costs, or metered costs of water, above the average levels for the area and housing type;
    • reasonable costs of basic gardening maintenance, cleaning, or domestic help, if necessitated by the individual’s disability and not met be social services;
    • purchase, maintenance and repair of disability related equipment need to enter or remain in work which include IT costs, where necessitated by the disability;
    • personal assistance costs, including any household or other necessary costs arising for the person; and
    • additional costs of special dietary needs due to illness or disability. (The Guidance, paragraph 40)
  4. The Guidance also says the following:
    • It may be reasonable for a council not to allow for items where a reasonable alternative is available at lesser cost.
    • The above list “… is not intended to be exhaustive and any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person’s disability should be included.” (The Guidance, paragraph 40)
    • That a person’s care plan “… may be a good starting point for considering what is necessary disability-related expense. However, flexibility is needed. What is disability-related expenditure should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support.” (The Guidance, paragraph 41)

MIG

  1. The (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 outlines a person is entitled to minimum income guarantee (MIG) which is the minimum amount they must be left with after any contributions towards their care and support.
  2. Section 78 Care Act 2014 outlines the secretary of state may provide guidance as part of its function. This includes updating the minimum income guarantee levels.
  3. For 2023 to 2024, the time period relating to Mr X’s complaint, a single person aged over 25 but under the pension credit age is entitled to a MIG of £103.65 per week. A single person who is in receipt of income support and the disability premium is entitled to an additional £45.75 per week with a further £22.35 per week if they are entitle to the enhanced disability premium.

What happened

  1. In April 2023, Christchurch and Bournemouth’s Intermediate Care team made a referral to the Council for a Care and Support Plan assessment for Mr X.
  2. A council social worker, The Social Worker, completed an assessment of Mr X for a Care and Support Plan. As part of this assessment, The Social Worker noted Mr X’s care needs. The Social Worker did not assess Mr X as being unable to achieve the “Managing and Maintaining Nutrition” care need.
  3. Following Mr X’s care assessment the Council told Mr X it would need to complete a financial assessment of his care needs. Mr X put in a financial assessment form to the Council detailing his income and expenditure. Mr X confirmed in this form he had no forms of income through work or businesses. Mr X also provided the Council with supplementary information about his income and expenditure.
  4. The Council completed the financial assessment and decided Mr X’s assessed contribution towards the cost of his care would be £99.05 each week. Mr X appealed this decision and liaised with the Council before raising a formal complaint in October 2023.
  5. On 24 October 2023 the Council issued a complaint response to Mr X. The Council said Mr X’s maximum contribution was £99.05 but his weekly care costs were £85.19 so he would only pay the latter amount. Mr X said its calculations of Mr X’s income and expenditure showed Mr X could afford these care costs. The Council addressed the individual monthly expenses Mr X had requested, the Council said:
    • £650 for groceries – it expected a person to cover their grocery costs from their MIG. The Council said the evidence provided by Mr X showed his weekly grocery cost was £119.89 and directed Mr X to the Citizens Advice Bureau to seek budgeting advice.
    • Loans – it cannot make an allowance for loan repayments and directed Mr X to charities to help with debt management.
    • Water, Gas and Electricity – its charging policy allows it make allowances for metered utility costs above the average levels for the house type. After considering Mr X’s costs for his utilities, these fell below the average so the Council would not consider an extra allowance.
    • Cleaning and Chiropody – it already covered a cost for these as a DRE.
    • Rent top-ups – it had already covered the shortfall in rent from his housing benefit in its calculations.
    • First Found Hosting fee, Domain Name renewal costs, Vape costs, Microsoft yearly fee, Miscellaneous costs – these costs were not a DRE and Mr X should pay these through his MIG.
    • Mobile Internet – it had not received evidence of this cost but would consider this further on receipt.
  6. Mr X responded to the Council’s complaint response. Mr X said he calculates the care costs from the Council put him into negative figures each month. Mr X responded to each of the requested items. Mr X said:
    • £650 for groceries – he cannot stand or sit to prepare meals so relies on ready meals and this explains his high grocery cost.
    • Loans – his loans need to be paid so should be exempt from the MIG.
    • Water, Gas and Electricity – he is housebound so uses extra utilities compared to the average person.
    • Rent top-ups – his rent had increased so the council should include this increase in rent in its calculations.
    • First Found Hosting fee, Domain Name renewal costs, Vape costs, Microsoft yearly fee, Miscellaneous costs – he is reliant on the hosing fee and domain names to run his business, the Vape helps him with discomfort and the Microsoft fees help him to carry out health related matters. Mr X said these should all be DRE.
    • Mobile Internet – he had already provided evidence of this cost and pointed to where the Council could find this.
  7. The Council responded to Mr X’s request for reconsideration and said it had now included his Mobile Internet cost which has reduced his maximum monthly contribution to £87.08 each week. The Council said its consideration of the other matters remained the same.
  8. Mr X responded to the Council asking why it had not added the PIP daily living component to his MIG. Mr X reiterated his concerns the Council had not correctly calculated his DRE or MIG.
  9. The Council told Mr X it had already including the PIP daily living component to his MIG. The Council said Mr X’s MIG consisted of the standard MIG amount plus the disability premium and enhanced disability premium amounts. The Council reiterated that it had already provided explanations of its consideration of Mr X’s DRE and MIG in its complaint response.

Analysis

MIG

  1. The Council has calculated Mr X’s MIG in line with the figures detailed by the secretary of state for 2023 to 2024. The Council has shown that it has included the standard amount for MIG and both the disability premium and enhanced disability premium.
  2. The Council had calculated the MIG correctly for Mr X’s circumstances and used this within its financial assessment of Mr X. I do not find fault with the Council for its calculation of Mr X’s MIG.

Financial assessment

  1. The Council produced a Care and Support plan for Mr X which confirmed the cost of his care to be £85.19 each week. Mr X did not complain about the cost of the care in his complaint but, instead, about his ability to afford it.
  2. If a person can afford to contribute towards the cost of their care, a council must ensure a person does so. A council must complete a financial assessment of a person to decide how much, if anything, a person should contribute towards the cost of their care.
  3. When the Council completed a financial assessment of Mr X, it decided Mr X would need to cover the cost of his care provided it did not exceed £99.05 each month. The Council calculated this following consideration of the Care and Support plan, Mr X’s financial assessment form and his supporting documentation.
  4. The Ombudsman’s role is not to question the Council’s decision making but to decide if the Council has considered and followed the relevant legislation and guidance. When a council completes a financial assessment of a person it must consider the relevant government guidance on Disability Related Expenses, as referenced in paragraphs 8 to 11.
  5. Mr X says the Council should have included certain costs as DREs. DREs are specific costs relating to a person disability. The Council needs to consider any costs that might reasonably be attributed to someone’s disability.
  6. The Council has shown it considered the guidance when it included Mr X’s cleaning and chiropody costs as DREs and included the top-up costs for Mr X’s rent as part of its consideration of costs. The Council has also shown that it reconsidered Mr X’s costs for his mobile Internet as a DRE when presented with evidence to support this cost. While Mr X had already provided this evidence, it included this on reassessment. Since the Council has included these costs as DREs after consideration, I would not find fault with the Council.
  7. While the Council accepted some costs as DREs, it rejected many of Mr X’s requests. The Council has considered each of Mr X's requests as part of its financial assessment and review of Mr X’s complaint before rejecting these costs. The Council has shown it considered the government guidance when making these decisions.
  8. When considering Mr X’s grocery costs, the Council reviewed the Care and Support Plan provided by The Social Worker which confirmed Mr X did not have a care need for “Managing and Maintaining Nutrition”. The Council also considered the referral from its Intermediate Care team which did not confirm any needs about preparing and eating food. The Council also discussed this cost further with The Social Worker who confirmed they did not identify any needs surrounding meals. The Council considered the relevant evidence when deciding not award these costs and I do not find fault.
  9. When considering Mr X’s Water, Gas and Electricity costs, the Council used the National Association of Financial Assessment Officer’s Guide to Disability Related Expenditure. The guidance showed that Mr X’s costs fell below the average costs for one-person households in the same year. While Mr X may consider he uses more than the average person, this is not reflected in his costs. The Council considered the relevant information when deciding not to award these costs and I do not find fault.
  10. When considering Mr X’s costs for his Hosting fees, Domain Name renewals and Microsoft costs the Council referred to the financial assessment form Mr X presented. This form confirmed Mr X did not have any other income from any businesses. Since these costs could not be attributed to helping Mr X enter or remain in work, these would not be a DRE. The Council also considered that Mr X would still have incurred these costs even if he did not have a disability for running these businesses. As such, these costs are not directly related to his disability. The Council considered the relevant information when deciding not to award these costs and I do not find fault.
  11. The Council also considered Mr X’s loan repayments and Vape costs, but considered these were not related to his disability and would therefore not be a DRE. The Council considered the relevant information when deciding not to award these costs and I do not find fault.
  12. I have reviewed the Council’s full thinking on each DRE request. The Council has considered the relevant guidance, the evidence available to it and Mr X’s comments in deciding which DREs to allow and to reject. I do not find fault with how it made these decisions.
  13. The Council has advised if Mr X can provide relevant evidence to support why his grocery or utilities costs are directly related to his disability, it could reconsider these matters. Mr X would need to contact the Council directly to find out what evidence the Council needs.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings