Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered her adult children’s disabled related expenditure because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to adjust the amount her adult children, Y and Z, had to pay towards their adult social care to reflect their disability related expenditure. She said the refusal to do so was causing financial hardship.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X asked the Council to consider a number of items of disability related expenditure when it reviewed the amount Y and Z had to pay towards the cost of their care in 2024. The Council considered the various items she listed in a review in July 2024: it accepted that some of the items amounted to a disability-related expenditure (DRE) and decided others did not. It explained its reasons.
6. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and complained. In particular, she considers the Council should include the following as DREs:
• Fuel costs. Ms X said she pays £80 per fortnight over and above the mobility component of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) that Y and Z receive, which is used to pay for a Motability vehicle.
• Swimming costs. Ms X said this was needed for its hydrotherapy benefit and for social inclusion.
• Purchases of essential equipment in 2018 and 2019.
7. The Council has considered the individual circumstances of Y and Z as set out in their care and support plans and its policies on DRE and Assisted Transport. Its position is that:
• Its Assisted Transport Policy says it will not consider assisting with fuel costs where a person uses their own vehicle or Motability car. It had also considered how other councils treat fuel costs and decided that no allowance should be given for fuel in this case.
• Swimming costs should be paid from Y and Z’s own personal monies within the minimum guaranteed income left after any assessed contribution is paid.
• It did not give allowances retrospectively for costs incurred before the assessment year. In any case, DRE can only be deducted from the assessed contribution, but Y and Z’s assessed contribution for the relevant years was already nil. It would consider the cost of any replacements at the time they are purchased but would need to see proof of purchase.
8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached.
9. The Council has considered all the potential eligible DREs Ms X has claimed on behalf of Y and Z. It doing so it has considered their individual circumstances, and relevant policies. Although it has a policy of not paying fuel costs where a person has a Motability vehicle, it has considered whether to depart from that policy in this case but has decided not to do so.
10. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman