Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed a financial assessment. The Council remedied the injustice caused when it investigated Miss B’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council failed to consider he request to recalculate her contributions for care when completing a financial assessment. Miss B says the Council has not properly considered her disability related expenditure and her client contribution is now unaffordable. Miss B says the events caused her to experience anxiety and distress and had adverse impact on her physical wellbeing. Miss B wants the Council to review the financial assessment and consider all her expenditure related to her needs. She also wants compensation for her time and trouble dealing with this matter.

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, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B said she contacted the Council in May 2025 to challenge the outcome of its financial assessment and the contribution it calculated she needed to make for her care and support. She referred to costs associated disability related expenditure (DRE) she said she incurred to meet her needs. She asked who was responsible for assessing her needs.
6. The Council responded in August and confirmed Miss B’s request was initially received by its direct payments team. It said the request was then sent to its finance team who had tried to contact her. It explained why the requested had closed when it was not responded to. The Council apologised for any distress and confusion caused to Miss B by the automated email.
7. The Council explained the finance team could not authorise DRE and details needed to be considered by its adult social care team. The Council apologised for the miscommunication and said it would improve. It agreed to the to provide staff training on dealing with historical information and auto-generated responses. It also said its adult social care team would review Miss B’s disability related expenses once she provided information.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as the injustice was remedied when the Council responded to Miss B’s complaint. The Council upheld Miss B’s complaint and acknowledged the miscommunication in its initial response. The Council apologised to Miss B and said it would improve by training its staff. It also agreed to review Miss B’s disability related expenditure. We cannot add to the Council’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the Council remedied the injustice caused by its actions when it investigated her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman