Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances to determine how much she should contribute to the cost of her care. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s financial assessment for his mother (Mrs Y). He said the matter caused Mrs Y to go without care and support, as she could not pay what the Council has asked her to. Mr X wanted the Council to provide care to Mrs Y at no cost.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains about his mother’s financial assessment for care. Concerns he raises include the Council:
• included Attendance Allowance as income despite Mrs Y not receiving it;
• refused to disregard several items of disability-related expenditure;
• lost the first financial assessment form they submitted; and
• delayed responding to their complaint.
6. Mr X says Mrs Y’s actual disability and household-related expenditure is far higher than the Council calculated and she could not afford to pay what the Council calculated. He says Mrs Y has therefore gone without care she needs.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not decide how much a person should pay towards their care and support. Rather, we consider whether there is fault by the Council in how it came to its decision.
8. The Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out how councils calculate how much people contribute to their care. Councils will consider a person’s income and capital. They will disregard certain household expenses and disability-related expenditure (DRE). The government determines the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), the minimum amount a person should be left with to meet day to day costs such as utilities and food.
9. The Regulations allow councils to treat a person as having ‘notional income’, including in circumstances where the person would be entitled to a benefit they have not applied for. The Council therefore included Attendance Allowance in its calculation of Mrs Y’s income when she had not yet applied for it.
10. The Council invited Mr X to submit evidence of DRE. Mr X provided a receipt for hearing aids, but the Council explained it would not include these as they had been purchased seven years earlier. Mr X provided photographs only of some items. The Council approved DRE for additional laundry costs, a power recliner chair, a low-level bed, a mattress and cover. It disregarded items where sufficient evidence was provided.
11. Mr X complained the Council did not include household contributions in Mrs Y’s financial assessment. The Council explained Mrs Y was living with family and was not legally responsible for any rent, mortgage payments or council tax. It therefore did not disregard any amount for such costs.
12. The Council says it did not lose a financial assessment form it received in 2024. Rather, it did not take any action on receiving the form because Mr X indicated Mrs Y had no eligible needs, so no care package was proposed. The Council says the form was also incomplete.
13. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances. There is insufficient evidence any injustice was caused to Mrs Y in any event. Mr X and Mrs Y have so far declined a care and support assessment so Mrs Y has not received any care. This is not directly caused by any fault by the Council. It remains open to Mrs Y and Mr X to accept an assessment to determine Mrs Y’s needs for care and support, and to keep evidence of spending for DREs to be considered again in future financial assessments.
14. The Council acknowledged it delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint and apologised. We could not achieve a different outcome if we investigated this further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman