Summary: The Council did not properly apply its guidance when it originally considered Mr Z's fuel costs as Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). We have not found fault in the Council's consideration of the other disputed DRE items. The Council has agreed to apologise for the frustration caused by the fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to disallow some of the Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) she claimed for on behalf of her disabled son, Mr Z. In particular, she says the Council applied a blanket approach and failed to properly explain its reasons for disallowing certain expenditure.

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 recommend 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 Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs Y 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

What should happen

6. Where a council has decided to charge for care and support, 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. 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.
7. 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. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure. It says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included. What counts as DRE should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support. For example, above average heating costs should be considered.
8. The Council's charging policy allows transport costs to be treated as DRE where the costs are caused by illness or disability and are over and above the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), or Personal Independence Payments (PIP). When assessing claims, the Council may consider alternative sources of support, such as transport provided by other organisations.

What happened

9. Mr Z receives adult social care support from the Council. He has severe physical disabilities and receives a direct payment to help meet his assessed care and support needs. His care and support plan includes support to access activities in the community, including theatre groups, reading lessons and other social activities.
10. In 2025, the Council reviewed Mr Z's financial assessment following changes to its charging arrangements and after becoming aware he received DLA including the higher rate mobility component. The review concluded Mr Z should contribute towards the cost of his care.
11. As part of the review, the Council reconsidered Mr Z's DRE. In November 2025 it wrote to Mrs Y explaining its decision on the DRE claims. The Council accepted some items and rejected others.
12. For the items it rejected, it gave reasons including that some items should be available from the NHS, some were considered personal expenses, and some could be met by cheaper alternatives. The Council also decided not to allow fuel costs associated with Mr Z's Motability car.
13. Mrs Y complained to the Council. She said the Council had failed to properly consider Mr Z's individual needs when deciding whether to allow certain expenses as DRE. She also disputed the Council's decision to refuse fuel costs and maintained several of the rejected items arose from Mr Z's disabilities.
14. The Council responded to the complaint in November 2025. It explained the Council completed the assessment in accordance with its charging policy, the Care Act 2014, statutory guidance and other good practice guidance. It maintained its decisions on the disputed DRE items, although it accepted its communication about the changes had caused distress and said it would seek to improve this.
15. Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman.
16. Following further challenge from Mrs Y, the Council carried out an additional review through a DRE Panel in May 2026. Mrs Y said the Council had not properly applied its guidance on transport costs and had failed to take account of Mr Z's individual circumstances. The panel reconsidered several disputed items.
17. The Council informed Mrs Y of the panel’s decisions. The Council agreed to allow several items previously rejected, including a swim vest, wheelchair blanket, audio book subscription, e-reader and stand and costs associated with a second carer for community access. The Council also conditionally accepted claims relating to air conditioning equipment and certain cleaning products.
18. The Council’s panel decided that certain fuel costs could be considered as DRE. But this would only include mileage for specific journeys linked to Mr Z's assessed care and support. It invited Mrs Y to provide information to enable those costs to be calculated.

Was there fault causing injustice to Mrs Y and Mr Z?

19. Mrs Y disputes several of the Council's decisions about whether it should treat certain expenses as DRE. However, it is not the Ombudsman's role to substitute its judgement for that of a council because someone disagrees with the outcome reached. Instead, we look at the procedure followed and whether the Council acted in accordance with relevant policies, legislation and guidance.
20. The records show the Council considered the DRE claims against its charging policy and the relevant guidance. It provided reasons for the items it accepted and rejected, including where it considered items should be funded by the NHS, were not disability-related, or where cheaper alternatives were available.
21. In relation to all but one of the disputed DRE items, I have seen no evidence of procedural fault. The Council considered the information before it, provided reasons for its decisions and reviewed several items through its DRE Panel. I cannot criticise the Council simply because Mrs Y disagreed with the outcome.
22. However, I reach a different view about the Council's consideration of fuel costs. The Council's guidance allows reasonable transport costs arising from disability where those costs are over and above the mobility component of DLA or PIP. The Council initially refused the claim because it considered the mobility component was intended to meet mobility-related costs. However, the evidence suggests Mrs Y had already explained that Mr Z's mobility benefit was fully used for his Motability lease and was not able to also meet fuel costs. When the Council reconsidered in May 2026, it accepted some fuel costs could be treated as DRE.
23. I am not persuaded this change was solely because of new information. Rather, the Council appears to have reconsidered how its guidance applied to information already available to it. On balance, I consider the Council did not properly apply its guidance or sufficiently consider Mr Z's individual circumstances when reaching its original decision on fuel costs. This was fault.
24. This fault caused Mrs Y avoidable frustration and time and trouble pursuing the matter through the Council's complaints process before the Council revised its position.
25. Mrs Y says she has recently provided further information requested by the Council, including GP evidence and information about fuel costs, and is still awaiting a response. These matters post-date the Council's complaint investigation and are not part of my findings on the Council's consideration of the DRE claims. However, if the Council has received the information requested, I would expect it to consider that information and provide Mrs Y with an outcome in an appropriate timescale to avoid Mrs Y needing to complain again.

Back to top

Action

26. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will provide evidence to show it has apologised to Mrs Y and Mr Z for the frustration caused by the fault in its original decision making relating to the DRE fuel claim.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice in one part of Mrs Y’s complaint which the Council has agreed to provide an apology for.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman