Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to retrospectively backdate Ms B’s Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) assessment to 2016. This is because Ms B’s father, Mr C, could have complained to us before now if he was unhappy with Ms B’s DRE assessment.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council should not have demanded £4281.16 in 2016 because it wrongly assessed his daughter’s, Ms C’s Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) and if it had communicated effectively and implemented the banding it did in 2019 it would have limited the financial hardship caused to Ms B. Mr C says because of the incorrect assessment Ms B paid £3090 over the three-year period she did not need to and says the Council should pay this back.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council explained it was not advised of changes to Ms B’s income in 2016 and had provided information and guidance for service users, including a telephone number for the Adult Care Finance Team when it undertook Ms B’s assessment in 2016. Mr C complained in 2021 but given the time scales involved it decided not to investigate the matter further. Mr C has asked the Ombudsman to consider whether Ms B should be retrospectively assessed and given back monies he now says she should not have paid if she had of been assessed properly in 2016.
6. Mr C says he did not know that Ms B’s banding had changed until she was reassessed in 2019, however, he did know what her income was and what DRE she was claiming in 2016. If he was unhappy with the assessment he could have complained sooner. If Ms B was suffering hardship in 2016 he could have asked the Council to consider a repayment plan, so Ms B did not have to pay the full amount the Council said she owed all at once. Mr C could have asked the Council to reassess Ms B using the revised calculation of her finances and if it refused come to the Ombudsman in 2016 if he was concerned it was not considering Ms B’s available income appropriately. There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion on time to investigate this late complaint now.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is no good reason to disapply the law to investigate this late complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman