Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr Y’s disability related expenditure. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly consider her claims for disability related expenditure for Mr Y. Mrs X says that as a result Mr Y’s contribution towards his care is too high and she cannot meet all the costs of his care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X asked the Council to consider some of Mr Y’s costs as disability related expenditure (DREs) as these costs arose from his disability. These costs included food supplements, internet and transport.
7. The Council considered Mrs X’s claim and notified her of its decision. The Council accepted some of the costs as DREs. It did not agree that Mr Y’s internet and TV subscriptions costs should be a DRE as it considered this was a household expense. It considered Mrs X could ask the NHS for support with Mr Y’s costs for food supplements and vitamins if he had a clinical need for them. The Council also refused Mrs X’s claim for transport costs as it considered this cost should be covered by the mobility component of Mr Y’s Personal Independence Payment.
8. We are not an appeal body so we will not come to our own view on whether Mr Y’s costs should be treated as DREs. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when considering Mr Y’s costs.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council’s letter notifying Mrs X of its decision shows it considered the DRE’s requested. The letter explains why it refused the DREs for the internet and TV subscriptions, supplements and transport costs. We are mindful Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s reasons for refusing the DREs. But there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation as the Council has considered the DREs and provided a reasoned explanation for refusing them. The Council’s decisions are also in accordance with its charging policy.
10. Mrs X said the Council did not take into account that Mr Y is now at home all day. But the Council considered the evidence of costs provided by Mrs X when considering her request for DREs. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Mrs X can ask the Council for a review of Mr Y’s financial assessment if his circumstances have changed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman