Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband. She says the Council refused to allow some costs as disability related expenditure and refused to consider her husband’s property related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband. She says the Council refused to allow some costs as disability related expenditure and refused to consider her husband’s property related expenditure. She also complains about the date her husband has been charged to by his previous care home.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s husband, Mr Z, receives permanent care in a care home. Mrs X said the Council has refused to allow his costs for podiatry and ear care as disability related expenditure (DRE).
6. The Council explained it considered the request but did not allow it as these costs were health expenses and therefore, not for adult social care to meet these needs. The Council said it would make representations on Mr Z’s behalf to the Integrated Care Board to consider funding these costs.
7. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault as the Council properly considered the request and made its decision in line with the statutory guidance.
8. The Council has also explained why it has not allowed Mr Z any property related expenditure. The Council explained it did not need to take account of any housing costs as Mr Z was in permanent residential care. This was in line with statutory guidance. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
9. Finally, the Council considered Mrs X’s request to review the care home’s decision to charge her husband up to mid-June 2024. Mrs X said she had cleared her husband’s room in early June 2024 and that the care home should have realised he was not coming back.
10. The Council said the care home provided an email she sent to the care home mid-June 2024 asking when she could come to college Mr Z’s effects. The Council also noted the care home did not assess Mr Z until mid-June and that it was at this point it determined it could not meet his needs. The Council was satisfied the care home was justified in charging Mr Z until mid-June.
11. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault as the Council has properly considered the evidence and detailed its reasons for why it was satisfied with the date the care home has charged to. I am also satisfied the evidence shows are not likely to find fault with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman