Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to give him sufficient notice of changes to its non-residential care charging policy. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it gave adequate notice and carried out a disability related expenditure assessment to ensure Mr X could afford to pay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to give adequate notice of its intention to increase the amount he had to pay towards the cost of his care charges.
2. He says this caused considerable distress.
3. Mr X is represented by his father, Mr D, in making this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

8. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)

Disability related expenditure

9. Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care. When doing so, a council should make an assessment to allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability-related expenditure (DRE) to meet any needs it is not meeting. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure. It says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included. What counts as DRE should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support. For example, above average heating costs should be considered.
10. The Council applies a standard allowance for DRE of £17 per week for all service users, regardless of whether or not they are in receipt of a disability related benefit.

What happened

11. Mr X has care and support needs. He receives a package of support from the Council. Mr X contributes some of his income, made up entirely of state benefits, towards the cost of this care. Mr D helps Mr X to manage his finances.
12. In February 2024, the Council notified all service users of its intention to include certain disability benefits when assessing what contribution they had to make towards the cost of care. Interested parties, including Mr X, were invited to comment on this proposal during an eight-week consultation period. Mr X says he did not receive this letter (the February Letter).
13. On 29 July 2024, the Council wrote to all service users, including Mr D, that the Council had considered the consultation responses and decided to introduce the new charging policy. This would mean some people would be asked to contribute more towards the cost of their care. Mr D says he received this letter (the July Letter) because it was addressed directly to him.
14. On 19 August 2024, the Council wrote to Mr D (the August Letter) notifying him that Mr X would have to contribute £36 more per week from 2 September 2024. Mr X says this reduction in income would significantly affect his quality of life because he would no longer be able to participate in activities that he enjoyed and kept him occupied.
15. Mr D raised this concern with the Council. He also complained about only being given two weeks’ notice of the actual amount he would be charged.
16. In response, the Council:

• explained the reason for the change to the policy;
• explained details of the decision-making process, including consultation with interested parties; and
• offered to carry out an assessment to establish whether Mr X had DRE over the standard allowance of £17 per week.

17. The Council carried out a DRE assessment in October 2024. This did not lead to any adjustments to Mr X’s contribution.
18. Disappointed by this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council:

• confirmed the February Letter was only sent directly to service users, not their family or carers;
• apologised that Mr D was not directly notified of the proposal to change the policy in February 2024; and
• explained it had made recent contact with Mr D and Mr X to further discuss his DRE. During this conversation, Mr X confirmed he was satisfied with the outcome of the October 2024 assessment and did not wish to take the matter further.

Analysis

19. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman was specifically about the failure to provide adequate notice of the increase in his contribution, not the change to the policy itself. Mr D feels the Council should have given at least six months’ notice of the change to allow Mr X time to adjust to having less expendable income.
20. Where a council makes a change to a policy that will adversely impact an individual, as was the case here, we expect them to be told about the change in advance. There is no law or guidance that specifies how much notice should be given.
21. Whilst it is the unfortunate Mr D was unaware of the February Letter, I have found no evidence of fault by the Council at this time. The February Letter was correctly addressed to Mr X, and I accept it is possible it was overlooked by him.
22. In any event, Mr D confirmed he aware in late July 2024 that a new charging policy has been agreed by the Council’s Cabinet Member because the July Letter was addressed to him. This provided a telephone number for him to call with any queries. I consider it was reasonable to for him to do so if he was unsure of the financial implications for his son.
23. Because the July Letter was not dispatched until 29 July 2024, Mr X was effectively given one month’s notice of a potential increase. He was then only given two weeks’ notice of the actual increase.
24. While I acknowledge this will have been a distressing letter to receive, I do not consider the short notice period to amount to fault. This is because:

• Mr X was already aware from the July Letter that the policy change had been agreed and had the opportunity to make enquiries; and
• there is no specific legal notice period that the Council was obliged to comply with.

25. I am also satisfied the Council took appropriate action by conducting a DRE assessment when Mr D raised concerns about Mr X’s ability to meet his care needs within his remaining budget. This was the correct response.
26. It is my view that the most significant issue in this case was not the lack of notice, but the change to Mr X’s disposable income. This will have been disappointing to Mr X, regardless of when he was told.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have not found the Council to be at fault. Mr X was given adequate notice of the changes to the Council’s policy and offered a DRE assessment to ensure his disability related needs were met.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman