Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its charging for non-residential care policy to determine how much Mr G should pay towards his care costs. Any injustice is not significant to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council completed a financial assessment to determine her son, Mr G’s, ability to pay towards adult social care costs without consulting with her as his court appointed Deputy for property and financial affairs. Mrs B says the Council significantly increased the amount it expected her son to pay towards his care costs without properly considering his disability related expenditure. The complainant also says the Council did not address her complaint properly including its lack of consultation with her as her son’s Deputy. Mrs B wants the Council to investigate why it did not follow its own policy, conduct proper assessments and review its standard complaint processes.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

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. Mrs B contacted the Council in September 2024 about letters it at sent her relating to her a financial review it had completed. Mrs B asked the Council to explain the significant increase in care charges it expected her son, Mr G, to pay following its review. She said the Council had not consulted with her as her son’s Deputy despite its charging policy saying it should.
7. The Council replied to Mrs B’s letter and said it had completed a financial review by obtaining updated details from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It said it considered a person’s disability related expenditure (DRE) where appropriate and adjusted the financial assessment accordingly. Mr G’s contribution had increased because of an increase in his income since it completed the last financial review. It provided a form for Mrs B to complete for DRE. The Council also said Mrs B had the right of appeal and provided contact details.
8. Mrs B complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with the financial assessment. She specifically referred to what she believed was the Council’s failure to follow its policy relating to consultation with Deputies appointed by the Court of Protection. She also complained about the Council’s alleged failure to consider DRE from the outset of a financial assessment.
9. The Council responded to the complaint and said during the financial assessment process people had an opportunity to provide evidence of DRE. It said it had received evidence of Mr G’s DRE and had completed a new financial assessment. It included details of the assessment and what it determined as
   Mr G's assessable income. The Council said it would complete a further review once Mrs B had provided further details about DRE.
10. Mrs B wrote to the Council as she felt it had not answer specific questions relating to her complaint such as why it had not consulted with her. She also said it had not provided a copy of the financial assessment. The Council responded and reiterated it had obtained details from the DWP and included a standard rate for DRE initially. It apologised it had not sent a copy of the financial assessment to Mrs B by post as it had said in its previous letter.
11. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council consulted with Mrs B following its financial review using updated information from the DWP about Mr G’s income. As his Deputy Mrs B had the opportunity to provide information relating to DRE which the Council considered. The Council provided a breakdown to show what it had considered to determine Mr G’s assessable income. The injustice was remedied during the Council’s complaint investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The injustice was remedied during the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman