Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y’s complaint about an additional charge made for on-site services at their Council-run extra care housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Ms Y complain about an additional charge made for on-site services at their Council-run extra care housing. They say the Council has refused to explain the reasons for the charge and how the charge is calculated, and the matter is causing them distress and financial loss. They want the Council to either reduce or remove the charge.

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.
3. 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)

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. Ms X and Ms Y are both housing tenants living in a Council-run extra care housing scheme. As part of the tenancy agreement, residents pay an additional weekly charge for on-site services.
7. Ms X and Ms Y asked the Council for information about how the charge was calculated and what it actually paid for. They said residents were not consulted before it was introduced, the charge was unfair, and it did not take into account tenant’s ability to pay.
8. In its responses to Ms X and Ms Y, the Council explained that the charge was used to provide extra care services on-site. It said that the charge was discussed with residents at the time of signing tenancy agreements and that each resident will have signed paperwork agreeing to the charge and giving the Council the authority to collect the payment every four weeks.
9. It said the on-site service included:
• Emergency assistance from on-site staff 24 hours a day
• Emergency personal care and assistance in the communal areas
• Provision of on-site activities and wellbeing services.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. At the time of moving into their property, Ms X and Ms Y both signed a tenancy agreement, including an agreement to pay the additional charge by direct debit. As they signed an agreement, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to charge Ms X and Ms Y, so we will not investigate this.
11. As the housing provider, it is for the Council to determine the level of the charge. The Council has appropriately explained to Ms X and Ms Y what the charge pays for and provided information on how the charge is calculated. Although Ms X and Ms Y want a more detailed breakdown of the calculations, I am satisfied the Council has provided an appropriate response to their queries. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making, so we could not ask it to reduce it or remove the charge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman