Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that Council delays in resolving her relative, Mr Y’s adult social care costs caused him to go into debt. The Council has waived significant outstanding costs to remedy any injustice caused by its delay and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X, who manages the finances of her relative, Mr Y, complained about Council delays in deciding what Mr Y should pay towards the cost of his care. She has been in dispute about how much should be considered as disability related expenditure when calculating Mr Y’s contribution since 2019. She said that, because of Council delays in resolving this, arrears have built up, which mean Mr Y is now in debt.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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

What happened

5. In 2019, the Council calculated how much Mr Y should pay towards his adult social care. Ms X thought the assessed contribution was too high. She asked the Council to consider additional costs Mr Y faced due to his disabilities (DRE). Her application for DRE was not accepted and that decision was upheld on appeal. At a stage 3 appeal in May 2021, the Council awarded DREs of £18.60 per week, which it backdated to May 2019.
6. In June 2022, following a complaint from Ms X, the Council agreed not to recover £12,700.93 of outstanding contributions, which meant Mr Y did not pay towards his care between May 2019 and July 2022. The Council explained he would need to pay £76.67 per week from 11 July 2022. At that point it removed the “hold” it had placed on the account whilst the dispute about Mr Y’s contributions was being addressed and resumed sending invoices every four weeks.
7. In January 2023, Ms X made a further DRE application. The Council increased the DRE to £23.98 pw and backdated this to 11 July 2022, this reducing the assessed contribution Mr Y needed to make. It wrote to Ms X with its decision and explained how it had calculated Mr Y’s revised assessed contribution oof £71.82 per week. Ms X appealed, but the decision was upheld.
8. In March 2024, after Ms X provided further information, the Council increased the DRE by £15 per week, which it backdated to 11 July 2022. It wrote to Ms X to explain how it had calculated Mr Y’s assessed contribution as £58.32 per week from 11 July 2022 and £69.93 from 10 April 2023.
9. In January 2025, Ms complained the Council had not frozen Mr Y’s assessed contributions until she had agreed the amount he should pay. She said the Council’s delays had caused Mr Y to go into debt. In its complaint response, the Council:
• accepted there were delays in considering DRE requests and appeals, for which it apologised;
• confirmed the DREs had been assessed correctly and explained why some of the amounts requested could not be agreed. For example, some items were not specifically related to Mr Y’s disabilities, transport costs could not be included as these costs should be covered from the mobility element of Mr Y’s personal independence payment, and staff costs could not be a DRE as they were part of the care package;
• explained it could not “freeze” the assessed contribution, although it had agreed with Ms X to stop sending invoices and taking any recovery action, pending agreement on what Mr Y should pay;
• confirmed it had told Ms X that contributions were needed from July 2022, but none were made until May 2023, and some payments were below the weekly charge, which had caused arrears to build up. It could not waive any further costs, having already waived a significant sum.

My assessment

10. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Ms X complained in January 2025 about events from May 2019. It is not clear why Ms X did not complain earlier, although I can see she has been in regular contact with the Council about the matter during this period.
11. The Council accepted there were delays in dealing with her request for DREs between 2019 and 2021, for which it apologised. The delays caused an injustice to Ms X because she was unclear about how much Mr Y needed to pay towards his care costs. In such situations, we would usually recommend a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused. We would not recommend a council should waive any underlying charges, as the Council agreed to do in June 2022. Further investigation into the delays would not achieve a different outcome.
12. Its letter to Ms X on 30 June 2022 confirmed Mr Y needed to pay contributions from 11 July 2022. Ms X did not arrange to make those contributions, which has caused arrears to build up. I acknowledge that Ms X made further applications for DREs, which the Council considered, and those further awards reduced the amount Mr Y had to pay, but I am satisfied that on each occasion, the Council told Ms X how much the assessed contribution would be. It was entitled to make the change effective from the date new information was received and did not have to back-date the change to July 2022, as it agreed to do, which benefitted Mr Y. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a further remedy for Mr Y.
13. Ms X remains unhappy about the DREs agreed. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions about DREs were correct. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. In this case, the Council has followed a proper process when considering the DREs requested and has explained its position in relation to the requests it has not agreed. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation on this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman