Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly assisting the Mrs X’s funding assistance needs. This is because there is no evidence that the Council’s calculations caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council had not correctly considered her expenditure when calculating the cost of her care. She states this will cause financial difficulties.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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.
4. I considered the Council’s funding assistance policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X is disabled. She is eligible to receive social care, and the Council will charge her for this care.
7. Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care. When doing so, a council should make an assessment to allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability-related expenditure (DRE) to meet any needs it is not meeting. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure. It says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included.
8. The Council conducted a financial assessment, and Mrs X submitted her income and expenditure to assist the Council in its assessment.
9. The Council assessed the information provided and decided Mrs X should pay £54.49 per week towards her care.
10. Mrs X argued the Council had not considered other disability-related expenditure, such as the cost of her mobility scooter, in its assessment and so the £54.49 charge was not a fair calculation.
11. In its complaint response, the Council explained that it considered the Personal Independence Payment (‘PIP’) Mrs X receives covers certain disability expenditure. The Council does not include the mobility part of PIP in its calculations of what Mrs X should pay towards her social care. The information provided demonstrates that the mobility part of PIP Mrs X receives does cover the cost of the extra disability-related expenditure. So there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making on this point.
12. Mrs X says she cannot afford the amount the Council wants her to pay towards her social care. I have looked at the Council’s calculations. I do not see any fault in the Council’s decision-making that would result in Mrs X paying more than she should towards her social care. So, I am satisfied that the Council’s calculations have not caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely investigation would find fault on the point about disability-related expenditure. On the Council’s calculations overall, there it is unlikely that investigation would find the Council’s actions caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman