Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s assessment of Mr Y’s disability related expenditure. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y. He complained that the Council’s decision not to include Mr Y’s transport costs as disability related expenditure was incorrect and unfair. Mr X considers that, as a result, Mr Y contributes too much towards the cost of his care.

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. (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 Mr X on behalf of Mr Y.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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. Councils should consider transport costs over and above the mobility component of the personal independence payment (PIP) to be a DRE.
7. Mr X asked the Council to consider Mr Y’s transport costs to his care provision as a DRE. The Council refused his request. Mr X appealed against this decision. In his appeal, Mr X said Mr Y’s transport costs exceeded the mobility component of his PIP so should be considered to be a DRE. He also disputed the Council’s calculations of Mr Y’s mileage costs.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal but decided that Mr Y’s transport costs should not be classed as a DRE. In its letter the Council explained why it did not consider Mr Y’s transport costs exceeded the mobility component of his PIP and how it had worked out his mileage costs.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s appeal decision letter shows it considered Mr X’s reasons for why he considered Mr Y’s transport costs should be classed as a DRE. It also provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered Mr Y’s costs did not exceed the mobility component of his PIP and why it would not class the costs as a DRE. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint on behalf of Mr Y because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman