Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to agree all her son’s disability related expenditure she requested. There is either not enough evidence of fault or not enough outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that the Council failed to agree to class a clinical waste disposal service and a premium online entertainment app as disability related expenditure (DRE).
2. Mrs X says this has led to additional costs and a loss of dignity for Mr Y. She wants the Council to agree to include these as DRE.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. DRE are costs that arise from a disability or long-term health condition.
8. Mr Y is disabled and receives DRE for some outgoings, including broadband.
9. Mrs X pays for a private clinical waste company to dispose of Mr Y’s incontinence pads. She asked the Council to include this cost as a DRE. The Council refused because it said Mrs X could dispose of them in the usual household waste collection service.
10. The Council has evidenced it considered Mrs X’s request to pay for the clinical waste service, explained why it would not do so and offered an appropriate alternative solution. There is no fault in how the Council made its decision and so we cannot comment on the decision itself.
11. Mrs X also asked the Council to pay for a premium membership to an entertainment app. She said this was because Mr Y did not have access to free air-to-television services or a television signal and the entertainment app offered a broader range of content which he preferred.
12. The Council initially failed to consider the premium membership but later did so as part of our investigation. It decided it would not pay for this because it stated Mr Y must have broadband and wifi to access the app in which case he would be able to access other, free, apps and services.
13. The Council initially failed to respond to Mrs X about her request for a premium subscription. It has now come to a decision and informed Mrs X why it will not allow this as a DRE. Any injustice caused as a result of the delays in making this decision are not enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint either because there is no evidence of fault, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman