Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council did not complete a financial assessment correctly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault accepted has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not complete a financial assessment correctly for Miss Z. She says the Council failed to take into account Miss Z owed her landlord money for purchases made on her behalf while she was in hospital. She also complains Miss Z’s assessed contributions have been calculated incorrectly.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Miss X is a friend and landlord of Miss Z. Miss Z has care and support needs. In October 2023, the Council completed a financial assessment to determine how much Miss Z must contribute towards the cost of her care.
6. Following the assessment, the Council wrote to Miss Z and confirmed she had been assessed being a full cost payer from August 2023 to November 2023. This was because she had more than capital threshold of £23,250. This meant she had to pay for the full cost of her care in this period. From November 2023, it was calculated Miss Z’s capital would fall below the threshold and she would be charged a weekly maximum of just over £49 per week.
7. Miss X contacted the Council in November 2023 to raise concerns about Miss Z being assessed as having above the capital threshold. Miss X told the Council Miss Z had been unable to pay some of her usual bills while she had been hospital and this had artificially inflated her account balances. The Council responded in December 2023 confirming the bank statements had been reviewed and it was not clear what other payments Miss Z would have been making from her account while in hospital that would take her under the capital threshold. The Council asked Miss X to provide a list of payments and evidence to support these regular payments to allow it to review the assessment. The Council said Miss X did not provide any evidence.
8. Miss X sent the Council some further correspondence in June 2024 detailing that Miss Z had bought some equipment for herself and had regular expenses in buying continence products. However, the Council said neither Miss X nor Miss Z provided evidence to support this.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council has explained to Miss X what evidence was required to allow it to review Miss Z’s financial assessment, and it was reasonable for the Council to request this. It remains open to Miss X and Miss Z to provide the Council with the required evidence to support Miss Z had regular expenses, or made purchases during the period in question, that would have brought her capital balance down.
10. The Council has acknowledged there was fault in how it completed the initial financial assessment in October 2023 as it used the incorrect capital balances. This meant Miss Z was incorrectly assessed as being a full cost payer up to November 2023. However, the Council has since corrected this by completing a new financial assessment in January 2025. The assessment was backdated and so now identified Miss Z would only be a fully cost payer up to September 2023.
11. Further, the Council also acknowledged the October 2023 financial assessment was completed incorrectly as it made allowances for council tax and too much rent. Therefore, Miss Z’s financial assessment was not completed properly until January 2025 when the Council completed another financial assessment.
12. However, an investigation is not proportionate as the accepted fault did not cause Miss Z any significant injustice as the Council only applied the correct allowances from January 2025. This meant the Council charged Miss Z a lower contribution, for the period September 2023 to January 2025, than it should have.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault accepted has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman