Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it charged Mr X for his care. His savings were correctly assessed as capital for the relevant period. Since his placement changed from residential care there has been no charge.

The complaint

1. Mrs K (the complainant) complains the Council was incorrect in its financial assessment of her disabled son Mr X. She says as a result he was overcharged and she has been caused additional stress and workload as his deputy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs K and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I spoke to Mrs K.
5. Mrs K and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
7. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration.
8. 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.
9. The capital limits, specified in the regulations, set the levels of capital (excluding any capital that has been disregarded) that a person can have while qualifying for financial support from their local authority. For people receiving care other than as a permanent resident in a care home, local authorities have discretion to set higher capital limits if they wish.
10. A person with assets above the upper capital limit is responsible for the full cost of their care in a care home. A person with assets between the capital limits will pay what they can afford from their income, plus a means-tested contribution from their assets (calculated as £1 per week for every £250 of capital between the capital limits). A person with assets below the lower capital limit will pay only what they can afford from their income.
11. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says “It is important that people are not charged twice on the same resources. Therefore, resources should only be treated as income or capital but not both. If a person has saved money from their income then those savings should normally be treated as capital. However they should not be assessed as both income and capital in the same period. Therefore in the period when they are received as income, the resource should be disregarded as capital.”

The Guidance also says the mobility component of Personal Independence Payments must be disregarded as income in financial assessment, and the following must be disregarded as capital for 52 weeks:

“52-week disregard’

48) The following payments of capital must be disregarded for a maximum of 52 weeks from the

date they are received:

• (a) the balance of any arrears of or any compensation due to non-payment of:

• (i) mobility supplement

As the above payments will be paid for specific periods, they should be treated as income over the period for which they are payable. Any money left over after the period for which they are treated as income has elapsed should be treated as capital.”

What happened

13. Mr X is a disabled adult living in placement with several other adults. Until July 2025 the placement was registered as a residential care home. The Council was then notified that it was de-registering and would become a supported living placement instead.
14. Mrs K acts as Mr X’s appointee for his finances. Mr X lacks capacity to manage his own finances.
15. The Council records show that its assessment of Mr X’s finances was based on the bank statements Mrs K produced which dated from July 2024 when the capital amount in Mr X’s account was over £19,000. Mrs K spent £3000 (on Mr X’s behalf) on a funeral plan which reduced the capital amount to around £16,000. The Council agreed to reassess Mr X from April 2024 using the lower amount from December 2024.
16. Mrs K appealed against the assessment. She said Mr X’s income was made up of ESA and the PIP mobility allowance. She said by taking into account Mr X’s savings as though they were capital, which she said was not permitted by the Care Act, it had placed him over the threshold amount and required a payment of £478 for the year 2024/25 and an ongoing payment of £10 a week.
17. Officers reviewed the assessment but reiterated to Mrs K that the assessment was correct. Officers noted that previous requests for financial information had not had a response from Mrs K and no capital had been declared.
18. Mrs K complained to the Council in April 2025. She said she still wanted to know why the Council was treating Mr X’s PIP mobility allowance as capital despite the stipulation in the Care Act that it should not be.
19. The Council replied to her complaint. It pointed to that part of the guidance which said (about mobility payments) “they should be treated as income over the period for which they are payable. Any money left over after the period for which they are treated as income has elapsed should be treated as capital.” The Council said “The above establishes that we would disregard for 52 weeks any backdated arrears payment of PIP (mobility), but we would not disregard as capital any usual 4-weekly payments that have accumulated in an account.”
20. The Council also explained “The previous financial assessment completed did not include capital as no capital had been declared, he was just assessed on his income. Bank statements provided in January 2025 showed that (Mr X) did in fact have capital.”
21. The Council also explained that Disability Related Expenditure, which Mrs K had requested, was not payable where care was being provided in a care home as Mr X would retain a personal expenses allowance.
22. Mrs K complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council’s actions had led to an unjustified tariff charge.
23. The Council says the placement changed to supported living with effect from 12 May 2025 and that has resulted in a nil charge since that date.

Analysis

24. The Council had a duty to complete a financial assessment in line with the regulations. There is no evidence it failed to do so.
25. The Council did not count the same money twice, as Mrs K alleges. There was no reason not to include as a capital the money which had accrued in Mr X’s account in line with the guidance which says of the mobility allowance payments, “.Any money left over after the period for which they are treated as income has elapsed should be treated as capital”.

Back to top

Decision

26. I have completed the investigation as I find no fault by the Council in the way in which it took into account the mobility payments once they ceased to be part of his income and became capital.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman