Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman investigating. The Council completed the financial assessment in accordance with its policy, law, and guidance. The Council gave unclear information to the complainant, for which it has apologised.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council gave wrong information, refused to listen, and was uncooperative. Ms B says this caused her emotional upset and distress and caused financial hardship to her mother (Ms C).

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, or
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When the Council provides an adult with care support, it must assess what if anything the person can afford to pay toward that support. The Council did this for Ms C.
7. The Council has followed its policy, the relevant law and guidance, and considered information provided by the applicant to decide how much Ms C should pay. The Council has considered Ms C’s income and expenses, any housing costs while Ms C was temporarily resident in a care home, and any costs she incurs because of her disability or illness.
8. When Ms B told the Council Ms C’s Disability Living Allowance benefit had stopped the Council reassessed what Ms C must pay based on this change to her income.
9. The Council accepts it did not give Ms B clear information during a telephone call about the above matter. It has apologised to Ms B and spoken with relevant staff to prevent future problems.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the financial assessment further. The Council followed the correct process to reach its decision. The Council accepts it did not give clear information to Ms B; it has apologised to Ms B for the confusion and given guidance to its staff. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman