Summary: There were delays in the Council’s financial assessment of Mr C and in its consideration of disability related expenditure but the Council has already remedied these faults. However, the Council had still not considered all of the DREs that Ms B submitted. The Council has now agreed to do so.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr C. She says the Council did not consider the DRE documentation she sent in December 2024 when the Council re-assessed Mr C’s finances. There were then delays in the consideration of the DREs and she says all the DREs have still not been considered. She also says there was a delay in the cancellation of a debt and the Council to pursue Mr C for this debt.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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 Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

6. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support and its powers to charge. The Council also has its own policies.

Financial assessment

7. Councils must carry out a financial assessment if they decide to charge for care and support. This will assess the person’s capital and income.
8. The scheme must comply with the principles in law and guidance, including that charges should not reduce a person’s income below a certain level.

Minimum income guarantee

9. The regulations for assessing a person’s income when they receive a care package and are not living in a care home are as follows.
10. Because a person who receives care and support outside a care home will need to pay their daily living costs such as rent, food and utilities, the charging rules must ensure they have enough money to meet these costs. After charging, a person must be left with the minimum income guarantee which is set out in the regulations.

Disability related expenditure (DRE)

11. In addition, where a person receives benefits to meet their disability needs that do not meet the eligibility criteria for local authority care and support, the charging arrangements should ensure that they keep enough money to cover the cost of meeting these disability-related costs.
12. The CASS Guidance states that there is no definitive list of DRE and any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person’s disability should be included.

What happened

13. Mr C is an adult man who has a disability and receives a care package from the Council. He pays a financial contribution towards his care package, based on his income.
14. Mr C moved into his own home in August 2024 and started to receive universal credit. Ms B says she provided the Council with the updated information for a financial assessment, including information regarding DRE in December 2024.
15. The Council carried out a financial assessment of Mr C in January 2025. This resulted in an increase in the contribution and the Council backdated the increase to October 2024.
16. Ms B complained to the Council in April 2025 and said:
• She questioned why the Council had backdated the increase to October 2024, rather than the date of the financial assessment.
• The Council had not considered the DRE information she had sent to the Council in December 2024.
17. The Council responded to the complaint in May 2025 and said:
• It was not clear why the Council had chosen October 2024 as the date for backdating the contribution.
• The provided DRE information was not included with the documents that Ms B sent in December 2024. The Council was unable to trace the documents and it apologised for this. Ms B had re-sent the documents in March 2025.
• The Council had reviewed the DRE information, reviewed the financial assessment and had recalculated the contribution amount as a result. The Council enclosed a list which set out its updated position regarding each DRE.
• The Council agreed to backdate the revised contribution to January 2025 and said it did so because of its failure to explain why it backdated the contribution to October 2024 and the fact that Ms B had to re-submit the information regarding DRE.
18. Ms B responded and thanked the Council for the response but said the Council had still not considered some of the DREs she had submitted and provided a list of the DREs which had not been considered yet.
19. The Council sent an updated list of DREs to Ms B in June 2025. Ms B emailed the Council in July 2025 and said the Council had still not considered all the DREs. She said her complaint had now been going on for a long time.
20. The Council sent an email dated July 2025 and said:
• The assessor would email Ms B a more detailed breakdown of the DREs.
• Ms B could take her complaint to the Ombudsman as the Council agreed it had been a long time since Ms B made her complaint.
21. Ms B took her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2025 and said:
• The Council reviewed Mr C’s financial assessment after he moved into his own home in August 2024. She provided information for the financial assessment and DREs in December 2024 and the process had been ‘painful’.
• The Council had still not considered all the DREs she had submitted.
• Mr C had an unpaid debt of £1,365 and the Council had agreed to cancel this debt but then failed to do so. Ms B was still receiving payments reminders for this debt.

Further information

22. I spoke to Ms B and she updated me on the current position.
23. Ms B said Mr C received two credit notes in March 2026. There was no explanation regarding the notes but they totalled £1,365 so she assumed that this related to the cancelled debt.
24. Ms B said she never received the more detailed breakdown of the DREs promised in the Council’s email dated July 2025.
25. She said the Council had still not considered the following DREs.
• Mr C had to pay a month’s rent upfront when he moved into his accommodation in August 2024 as well as an additional week’s rent. These costs were not covered by his benefits so Ms B lent him the money to pay for this.
• Mr C had to purchase all the items for his home in August 2024 and Ms B lent him the money to do this.
• Cost of carwash as Mr C was unable to clean the car.
26. The Council commented on the draft decision that I sent out and said it had now considered the DREs that Ms B had raised and gave its views on the DREs. The Council

Analysis

27. I note the Council has already upheld Ms B’s complaint that it could not say why it backdated the increased contribution to October 2024 and it upheld the complaint that it had not considered (and possibly) lost her DRE documents from December 2024. The Council has already reconsidered the DREs and reduced the contribution. I also note that the Council used its discretion and provided a financial remedy as it backdated the contribution increase to January 2025 which was more financially advantageous to Mr C. So the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for this fault and I do not recommend any further remedy.
28. There was also a delay in cancelling Mr C’s debt of £1,365 and the Council should not have continued to pursue this debt. This fault caused additional stress to Ms B. However, I note that the Council has recently cancelled this debt so this complaint has now also been resolved, albeit late.
29. There was also fault in the Council’s delay in considering all the DREs and providing an explanation for its decisions and this problem has still not been resolved entirely.
30. I asked Ms B what remedy she wanted in terms of the outstanding DREs that had not been considered yet. Ms B said that she appreciated that it was a long time ago when she submitted the DRE information so she said she was happy to resubmit all the DREs for a review or, alternatively, she wanted the Council to provide her with an explanation and a decision on the DREs listed in paragraph 24.

Back to top

Action

31. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing for the fault.
• Explain its decisions on the DREs listed in paragraph 25 or offer Ms B the option to re-submit the DREs.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman