Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the cost of his care and the Council’s failure to share information with the Department of Work and Pensions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and the Council has exercised discretion to waive the care costs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the costs of respite care and the Council’s failure to share appropriate information with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). He said he was not told their would be a charge of the cost of the respite care, nor was he told the respite may affect his benefits.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Costs of care

5. In late November 2022, the Council arranged a short-term placement for Mr X to better understand his care needs and because essential repairs needed to be carried out to his home. The records show the social worker explained Mr X would need to contribute to the cost of his care, explained the likely weekly cost and explained the Council would need to carry out a financial assessment. At that point, it was unclear how long the placement would be for.
6. There was a delay in completing the financial assessment as Mr X was initially not able to complete the form. In the event, it was completed on the basis of information from DWP. The records show Mr X was unhappy with the assessed contribution.
7. From the records seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in explaining Mr X would need to contribute towards his care or in calculating his contribution. In any event, the Council agreed to waive the care costs following his complaint on a discretionary basis so there is nothing more we could achieve. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further.

DWP and benefits

8. There is no record to show the social worker advised Mr X at the outset that his benefits may be affected if he was away form home for more than four weeks, although it was not clear then how long the placement would last.
9. The Council later advised Mr X to contact the DWP and assisted him by writing a letter for him to send DWP. It also completed and returned forms from DWP in August 2023, referred him to the local Citizens Advice Bureau for assistance in March 2024 and corresponded with the DWP in April and May 2024.
10. It is for the DWP to decide whether to recover any overpayment of benefits. The Council, in its complaint responses, declined to assist Mr X with any repayment because any repayment would relate to the part of his benefits intended to cover daily living costs, which were met by the Council during the placement.
11. We will not consider this complaint further. It is clear from the records that the placement was needed until repairs on Mr X’s home were completed, the Council advised Mr X to contact the DWP from at least May 2023 and it was proactive in assisting Mr X to resolve his benefits position with the DWP. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman