Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s financial assessment as it is unable to consider additional Disability Related Expenses without receipts according to its policy. The complainants say the direct payments are lower than they should be but the Council has used an hourly rate related to the London living wage to calculate the direct payments so there is no fault on this point.

The complaint

1. Ms X, complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y. They complain the Council carried out a financial assessment in May 2021 without contacting them first to establish the correct figures. Ms X says that this has meant that the direct payments are lower than they should be and that they do not receive enough each month to cover the cost of care.
2. Ms X also complains that the hourly rate used to calculate their direct payments is incorrect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers submitted by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Ms X and the organisation 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

Key facts

8. Mrs Y has received direct payments from the Council since 2013. Mrs Y uses the direct payments to employ her daughter, Ms X for care and support.
9. The Council carried out a financial assessment in 2019. This decided that Mrs Y did not need to contribute towards the cost of her care, as the Council counted the cost of major house works as a discretionary allowance.
10. The Council did not review the charge in 2020 so Mrs Y did not contribute towards her care in 2020.
11. In May 2021 the Council wrote to Mrs Y. Ms X says that they did not receive this letter. The letter said that the allowance for the property improvement had now ended so a new financial assessment had been carried out which required her to pay £75 a week towards her care. The letter said the assessment was subject to review as it did not have updated records on Mrs Y’s pension housing and disability related expenses (DRE’s). The Council included its standard allowance for DRE’s of £10 per week. The letter included a financial assessment form so Mrs Y could send in the correct figures for the financial assessment to be reviewed.
12. Ms X made an official complaint to the Council. The Council responded to the complaint and explained that she needed to fill in the financial assessment form so the Council could review the charges. The Council also asked her to provide receipts for any DRE.
13. Ms X filled in the financial assessment form in March 2022. The Council acknowledged the form but said that it needed receipts for the £55 per week DRE she was claiming as it was above £10 per week. The Council has said that it will accept the last three months receipts for DRE and backdate this till April 2021.
14. The Council’s policy says that it allows £10 per week for DRE for those on the middle rate of care for Disability Living Allowance. Above this amount, the service user needs to provide evidence of costs for DREs.

My analysis

15. Ms X complains the Council carried out a financial assessment in May 2021 without contacting them first to establish the correct figures.
16. I agree that the Council completed a financial assessment without contacting them to obtain the correct figures. However, when it did so the Council sent Mrs Y a form so that she could provide the correct figures if the ones used were incorrect. The letter made it clear the figures would be reviewed if necessary. So, I can find no fault on this point as Ms X could have returned the form with the correct figures and the financial assessment would have been backdated.
17. Ms X has explained that she does not agree that she should have to supply evidence of DRE now, when she did not have to previously. The Council’s policy is clear that evidence needs to be provided for DRE above £10 per week. The fact that it has allowed some DRE previously without evidence does not mean it should continue to go against its policy. So, I do not consider the Council is at fault in asking for evidence of DRE. I can see from the file notes of 2018 that the Council allowed £55 per week DRE then as Ms X promised to send receipts. So Ms X has been aware since 2018 that she needed to send in receipts. The fact that the Council did not follow this up at the time does not mean that it should continue to repeat its error of allowing the DRE without receipts. This error did not disadvantage Mrs Y, but the Council is reasonable to correct this now by requiring receipts in accordance with its policy.
18. Ms X says that the Council has used the wrong hourly rate to calculate the direct payment amount. The Council has said that it uses the London living wage to calculate the amount. I have looked at the Council’s calculations and I cannot find any evidence of fault. Mrs Y has received a regular payment of £1109 per month since July 2021. The calculations sent by the Council show that once added to Mrs Y’s contribution of £75 per week and other expenses, the Council has paid a rate of £11.50 per hour.
19. I can see there was a period from April to June 2021 when the direct payment amount varied. The Council has said that when Mrs Y’s budget was increased in January 2021 there were a few months where the payments varied as adjustments had to be made. The April payment was slightly higher and the May one slightly lower. From June 2021, after the financial reassessment, the variation in payments no longer occurred and they have received a regular payment.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman