Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his son’s care. The Council accepts there was a long delay in completing the son’s financial assessment and has written off some of the charges. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his son’s care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

What happened

6. Mr X’s son, Mr Y, is a young adult with a learning disability. Mr Y lives with his family.
7. The Council started providing a package of care for Mr Y on 26 August 2023.
8. When the Council did a financial assessment for Mr Y in April 2024, it decided he could afford to pay £83.65 a week towards the costs of his care. This left Mr Y with £175.25, which included the Government’s minimum income guarantee, disregarded benefits and the Council’s banded allowance of £25 for disability related expenditure.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about his son’s financial assessment in May. He said it had failed to take account of the “board” his son paid towards living with his parents. He said 55.1% of parents charged their adult children some form of rent for living at home. He said Mr Y paid them £400 a month to cover food, water, warmth, clean clothes, access to the internet, music etc. He said paying the Council’s assessed charge would prevent his son from taking part in activities in the community for which there was a charge, or subscribing to a streaming channel.
10. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint later in May, it said:
• It followed the same guidelines as for housing benefit. Where the rent liability was to a person who lived in the same household and was a close relative, there was no eligibility to housing benefit. As Mr Y would not be eligible for housing benefit, it would not consider any board he paid as rent, and would not therefore include it as a property-related expense in his financial assessment.
• It considered board to be part of his son’s minimum income guarantee. The minimum income guarantee was intended to cover living costs such as utility bills, food and activities.
11. As Mr X was not satisfied with its response to his complaint, he raised further issues with the Council. When the Council replied in September, it said:
• It backdated the financial assessment to 26 August 2023 because that was when it started providing chargeable services for his son.
• It only became aware of the need for Mr Y to have a financial assessment following a “routine search for missing financial assessments” in March 2024.
• Because of the delay in doing a financial assessment, it would write off the charges between 26 August and 10 October 2023 (£587.44), so would only collect backdated charges for the six months before the financial assessment.
• It had provided information on the Council’s approach to charging in November 2020 and told them about the need for a financial assessment in January 2023.
• It provided information to show it had not overcharged Mr Y for his care.
12. Mr X says they use their son’s rent to pay for:
• Food, including specific things Mr Y eats
• Washing
• Keeping the lights and a fan on at night while Mr Y sleeps
• Heating
• Clothing
• A GPS signal for Mr Y’s phone

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

13. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says the purpose of the minimum income guarantee is to ensure people have enough money to meet basic needs such as “purchasing food, utility costs or insurance”. Councils have to disregard some disability benefits, such as the disability premium and the enhanced disability premium. Councils also have to disregard housing costs “such as rent and council tax net of any benefits provided to support these costs – and after any disability related expenditure”.
14. The Council’s approach to rent is in line with the approach taken by other councils. Mr X’s explanation for what the money is spent on, indicates that it is used for expenses which the minimum income guarantee would be expected to cover. There is therefore no evidence of fault by the Council.
15. The Council accepts it was at fault over the long delay in completing a financial assessment. It has written off £587.44 of the charges. There is no basis to ask the Council to do more than that. Mr X has confirmed that the Council is open to agreeing a repayment plan for the backdated charges. That is in line with what we would expect it to do.

Back to top

Decision

16. I find fault but no injustice which has not already been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman