Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s finances to calculate her contributions to the cost of her care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it calculated her contribution. Any fault due to delay in the Council reassessing Ms X’s finances did not cause her an injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council increased her care contributions significantly despite her circumstances not having changed. She said the Council refused to disregard her personal debt repayments from its financial assessment.
2. Ms X said she could not afford to pay the assessed contributions. She said this will place her in financial hardship, and the matter has caused her significant distress. She wanted the Council to disregard her debt repayments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

(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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out how councils must assess peoples’ finances to decide how much they should pay towards their care. The regulations say in assessing income, a council must take account of any housing-related costs which the adult is liable to meet in respect of their main or only home. Such costs include mortgage, rent and council tax. It also sets out other payments a council must take account of. This does not include any debt or loan repayments.
7. There is no specific requirement in the regulations, or the associated Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) for councils to take into account a person’s debts in their financial assessment. The exception to this would be where the debt had arisen specifically in relation to the person’s disability. In such cases, it may be considered as disability-related expenditure, and subsequently disregarded. There is nothing to indicate this was the case with Ms X’s personal debts.
8. The Council considered the relevant factors in Ms X’s financial assessment and disregarded disability-related expenditure she had evidenced. The Council ensured she was left with the Minimum Income Guarantee, at the amount set by the government, to cover her daily living expenses. It referred her to agencies for debt advice. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Ms X’s finances.
9. The Council explained the significant increase in Ms X’s assessed contributions was due to it not having reassessed her finances for six years. Ms X’s financial circumstances had changed within that six-year period. If we investigated this complaint, we would likely say this delay was fault. However, this did not cause Ms X injustice. Ms X paid less for her care for several years than she would have, had the Council reassessed her sooner. We will not therefore investigate this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it calculated her contribution, and any fault due to delay in the Council reassessing Ms X’s finances did not cause her an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman