Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled his financial assessment. He also says there were flaws in its complaints handling. We find some fault with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s financial assessment because it failed to ask for relevant information at the outset and it sent him differing information about his client contribution. The Council was also at fault for how it handled Mr X’s complaint. These faults caused Mr X frustration, confusion and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained how the Council handled his financial assessment. He also says its communication with him was poor, there were flaws in its complaints handling and it has failed to explain why there is £2,000 of his money sitting in a locked account. Finally, Mr X complained how the Council handled his subject access request (SAR).
2. Mr X says the matter has caused significant distress and upset to him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his SAR. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to handle this issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for social care services

10. 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)
11. 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. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.

Direct payments

12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.

Disability related expenditure

13. 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.

What happened

14. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
15. The Council started assessing Mr X’s care and support needs in November 2023. It completed the assessment and decided he had eligible care and support needs.
16. Mr X built an extension in his house with a wet room to help him to live downstairs. His wife took out a mortgage to fund this and he paid her back every month.
17. The Council called Mr X at the end of December to get further information about his finances. It sent him a letter after the call and provided its indicative charges towards his care and support of £143.45 per week. It asked him for further financial information so it could revise his financial assessment.
18. Mr X called the Council in early January 2024 and asked about the financial assessment. He also said he had provided evidence for it to consider.
19. The Council reviewed Mr X’s financial assessment and sent a letter to him on 10 January. It decided to include the mortgage and therefore it reduced Mr X’s client contribution to £96.59 per week. It said if he had DRE he could appeal its decision.
20. Mr X spoke to the Council about his DRE and the cost of the wet room. The Council told him to send in evidence so it could consider it further.
21. Mr X signed a direct payments agreement for his care and support at the end of January.
22. The Council reviewed Mr X’s DRE and sent a letter to him on 11 March. It said his weekly contribution was £143.45. This would increase to £157.25 per week in April. It said the mortgage was not household expenditure but a loan for extending the property. Therefore, it would need to remove this cost from the assessment. It said it had funded a toilet lift for Mr X. It asked him for the cost of it.
23. Mr X decided to end his care package at the end of March because of the increased client contribution.
24. The Council reviewed Mr X’s case again in April. It decided to reinstate the mortgage. It sent a letter to Mr X on 8 April and reduced his client contribution to £96.59 per week. The Council’s case notes state it made this decision because officers understood Mr X would not be claiming DRE for the wet room.
25. Mr X called the Council in early May and asked to speak to a manager. A manager called him back two weeks later. Mr X explained he was not happy about receiving conflicting information about his client contribution. The manager apologised for this.
26. Mr X complained to the Council in December. He said it had told him differing information about the client contribution for his financial assessment. He also said there had been a lack of transparency over its decision making.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in late January 2025. It said there was an oversight in not taking into account mortgage payments in the financial assessment. It apologised for the confusion caused. It had now corrected this. It also said it could have made it clearer at the start of the process the costs associated with the wet room and the mortgage to pay for the works could not be claimed simultaneously. It said Mr X asked for call backs from the management team to clarify the change in client contribution and these went unanswered. It said it had taken steps to ensure all requests to speak to a manager are prioritised and responded to promptly.
28. Mr X emailed the Council on 23 February and asked for an extension to respond to its stage one complaint response. The Council responded and agreed the extension. It said once it received his response it would forward it to a senior manager to review.
29. Mr X emailed the Council in early March and said he wanted it to revisit his initial complaint. He said its stage one response lacked detail.
30. The Council sent (in the post) Mr X a further response to his complaint in early May. It said it decided to remove the mortgage in the financial assessment in March 2024 because it was a loan taken from the equity to carry out adaptations to his property. This meant his new contribution was £157.45 per week. It said there was a delay with the manager calling him back. It apologised for this.
31. Mr X called the Council and said he had not received its further response to his complaint. The Council emailed him a copy of its response on 14 May.
32. Mr X spoke to the Council two days later. He said he was still concerned about the amount he was required to pay towards his financial assessment. The Council emailed Mr X after the call and asked him to send his outstanding concerns within 20 working days from the date of its response. A senior manager would then further investigate and respond within 20 working days.
33. Mr X spoke to the Council and asked for an extension to send his outstanding concerns. The Council emailed Mr X on 20 June and asked him to provide his response within 30 days.
34. Mr X sent the Council his further concerns on 13 July. He said the Council had provided conflicting responses about his client contribution when it responded to his complaint. He also said his occupational therapist agreed to send him £500 to buy equipment. The income team credited £309.53 to a prepaid account. An officer told him he owed £190.47 and there was a locked account with over £2000 of his money. He said he had asked him for a manager to call him back, but no one had. Finally, he said he was unhappy with how it handled his complaint. He said it delayed sending him its complaints response from May, despite several phone calls. He also said it should have provided him with a senior manager review in May.
35. The Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint at the end of August. It said the payments referred to as mortgage repayments were in his wife’s name. It had not seen a copy of the mortgage agreement and so it could not make a definitive conclusion about whether the payments were towards the mortgage and whether Mr X was liable. It said it would be happy to review the finding if Mr X provided further information.
36. The Council also said it decided that a team manager should review Mr X’s complaint before a senior management review. It also said the income team was waiting for further information from him which is why it breached the five-week deadline. Finally, it said it wrongly made the payment of £500 onto a prepaid card. It apologised for this.

Back to top

Analysis

37. We would normally except someone to come to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Mr X became aware of the issues in his complaint in April/May 2024. He did not refer his complaint to us until September 2025. Mr X says he first made a SAR to the Council in May 2024, as he wanted to understand its decision making first, before then deciding whether he needed to pursue a complaint. However, he did not receive a partial response to this SAR until December 2024. He then promptly made a complaint. I consider this is a good reason why Mr X did not refer his complaint to us sooner. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate his complaint.

Financial assessment

38. The Council told Mr X in its financial assessment letter in December 2023 that it was an indicative contribution, and he would need to provide more information so it could revise this. This was not unreasonable. Mr X provided further information, and the Council revised Mr X’s client contribution in January 2024. It included the mortgage payments.
39. In a telephone conversation with Mr X in January 2024, the Council told him to send in further information for the DRE claim. The Council said in its complaint response in January 2025 it should have made it clearer at the start of the process the costs associated with the wet room and the mortgage to pay for the works could not be claimed simultaneously. I agree the Council was at fault for this. Mr X claimed DRE for the wet room after a telephone call with the Council, which was then rejected in the March 2024 financial assessment as well as the mortgage payments. It then reversed its decision in April 2024 and decided to include the mortgage payment on the understanding that Mr X would not be claiming DRE for the wet room. The Council could have avoided that if it had provided better clarity sooner.
40. The Council said in its response to my enquiries the differing financial assessments it sent was based on the further information it received. However, I cannot see Mr X provided any different information from March to April 2024.
41. In the Council’s complaint response in August 2025, it said the mortgage payments were in Mr X’s wife’s name, and it had not received the mortgage document. However, the Council had never asked Mr X for mortgage documents. It had ample opportunity to do so previously. There is also no evidence it previously raised concerns about the mortgage not being in Mr X’s name. Its response also suggests the previous financial assessment from April 2024 was inaccurate and was based on a lack of information. This is fault.
42. The Council’s faults outlined above have caused Mr X frustration and upset. I accept Mr X receiving different information about his financial contribution caused him confusion. The Council’s complaint response from August 2025 has compounded this ongoing confusion.
43. Mr X ended his care package with the Council in March 2024, and he is therefore no longer required to contribute financially. However, it remains open to him to provide the Council with the further information it has requested if he wants to restart his care package.

Communication

44. Mr X says he has made numerous phone calls to the Council, but these often went unanswered. The Council apologised to Mr X for its delay in calling him back in May 2024 when it responded to this complaint.
45. I asked the Council to provide me with a list of calls between it and Mr X. It said it does not have a single and consolidated call-logging system, and it does not routinely record outgoing calls. It provided me with a limited list of calls between it and Mr X. Due to the lack of complete records, I cannot form an independent view on this part of Mr X’s complaint and decide whether its apology is sufficient to remedy his injustice.

Money in locked account

46. As I have stated above, the Council does not record outgoing calls. Therefore, I cannot independently verify what the Council told Mr X about £2,000 of his money sitting in a locked account.
47. When I made enquiries of the Council I asked it to account for this money. It has explained the pre-paid card balance was £1,633.81, which related to direct payment funding allocated for care and support. Of this, £500 represented a one-off payment for Mr X. Mr X has received this. It said there is no evidence of additional entitlement to Mr X.
48. I welcome the Council has now provided clarity. However, Mr X specifically raised this issue when escalated his complaint. The Council failed to address this. This fault has caused Mr X frustration.

Complaints handling

49. Mr X says the Council sent a further response (May 2025) to his complaint in nine weeks rather than five weeks. He also says its May 2025 response should have been a senior manager review rather than an investigation by a local manager.
50. The Council’s adult social care complaints procedure says a team manager will respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 to 25 working days. It will issue a senior management review at stage two within 20 working days. The Council’s response of May 2025 was a further stage one response. Therefore, the Council should have responded within no more than 25 working days. The Council missed this deadline by four weeks. This is fault, which caused Mr X frustration. However, when the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint it apologised for the delay. This is sufficient to remedy Mr X’s injustice. I do not recommend anything further.
51. The Council has explained an officer had a telephone conversation with Mr X and they decided it would provide a further stage one response rather than a senior manager review.
52. I have listened to two calls between Mr X and the Council. In the first call, the officer said its May 2025 response was a senior manager response. In the second call five days later, the Council explained it decided to issue a further stage one response because Mr X said in his appeal email that its response from January 2025 lacked detail. Therefore, it decided to address the outstanding points in a further stage one response. While it is unfortunate the Council initially told Mr X the wrong information, it later clarified this. The Council is entitled to depart from the steps in its complaints procedure if it had good reasons to. It explained its reasons to Mr X. I do not find fault.
53. Mr X says the Council’s complaint responses of January and May 2025 were contradictory. In the response from January 2025, the Council apologised for not including the mortgage payments. In the response from May 2025, the Council said it decided to remove the mortgage in the financial assessment in March 2024 because it was a loan taken from the equity to carry out adaptations to his property. The Council did not refer to April 2024 financial assessment where it decided to include the mortgage payments again. It also said in the May 2025 response it sent Mr X a financial assessment letter on 4 March 2024. The Council did not send a letter on this date. I accept the Council’s complaint responses caused Mr X some confusion.
54. Mr X says the senior manager who responded to his stage two complaint was involved in the stage one process. He provided me with a call recording about this matter. I have listened to the call. The officer did not say the senior manager had been involved in completing the stage one complaint responses. The officer explained the senior manager had agreed the Council could include the mortgage in the financial assessment. The Council’s complaints procedure says the most relevant senior manager will review the complaint. I do not find fault.
55. The Council should have issued its stage two response within 20 working days from receiving Mr X’s escalation. The Council’s response was 11 working days late, which caused Mr X further frustration. However, the Council apologised to Mr X when it issued his stage two response for the length of time it had taken to resolve his concerns. I am satisfied this is sufficient to reflect Mr X’s injustice. I do not recommend anything further for this part of his complaint.

Back to top

Action

56. By 12 August 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X.
• Pay Mr X £150 for his frustration, upset and confusion.

57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman