Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted on changes to its charging policy for non-residential care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council consulted on changes to its charging policy for non-residential care. He said the Council’s decision to reduce the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) adversely affected those with disabilities. He said the Council failed to properly assess the effects of increased care charges therefore did not make an informed choice about the best way to make savings. Mr X wants the Council to revisit the consultation process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council consulted about changes to its charging policy between February and May 2024. It did this online, by contacting relevant persons and by holding drop-in sessions. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council accepted that there was an error in that initial consultation documents were not sent to nominated carers, such as those with Power of Attorney or Deputyship. It said this was identified a month into the consultation and rectified. It apologised for this but stated as the error was identified early it did not need to extend the consultation period. I do not consider this error left the consultation process flawed, as there was still sufficient opportunity for those affected to respond to the consultation.
7. Mr X said the Council’s drop-in sessions were not always accessible or had staff without appropriate knowledge. The Council confirmed it did sessions at a variety of locations and where possible, would speak to people privately about their circumstances. It said it could not provide for every induvial circumstance, therefore provided a dedicated email and telephone line. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council consulted to justify our involvement.
8. As part of the Council’s consideration of the changes to the MIG, it completed an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). That assessment identified the impact of the changes to people with disabilities. The EIA were considered by the Council’s Cabinet, alongside the consultation report. The Cabinet Meeting also included questions about the consultation and objections to the change in policy. The Cabinet decided to approve the reduction to the MIG. Although Mr X disagrees with this decision, the Council followed the correct process in the making of it. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman