Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his son’s care. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his son’s care.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr X’s son, Mr Y, is a young adult with a learning disability.
6. The Council did a financial assessment in January 2022, as Mr Y moved from children’s to adults’ services. It decided he could afford to pay £95.83 a week from 8 March 2022, when he started receiving the health allowance of universal credit (£89.60). He had been receiving universal credit since September 2021 (£138.68). The charge took account of Mr Y’s minimum income guarantee of £132.45 a week (i.e. total income of £228.28 less £132.45 = £95.83). Mr Y had no allowance for disability related expenditure (DRE).
7. Mr X also receives a mobility allowance which he uses to lease a motability vehicle. The Council could not take account of the mobility allowance in the financial assessment.
8. Mr X complained about the charge. The Council initially responded on 2 March. He complained again, as he was not satisfied with its response. He wanted the Council to take account of:
• housing costs, which he said did not need to be formal costs such as rent; and
• fuel costs as a DRE because his son cannot travel on his own.
9. Mr X said he could not provide fuel receipts.
10. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint on 20 June, it apologised for the delay in responding. It said:
• under the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, “housing related costs” meant mortgage repayments, rent or ground rent, council tax or service charges (other than those which are ineligible under Schedule 1 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006); and
• it had advised Mr X to provide evidence of any DRE, including fuel receipts, but he had not done so;
• it had dealt with Mr Y’s financial assessment in line with the 2014 Regulations; and
• it would contact him about affordable ways to pay the outstanding charges.
11. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response, so took his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. He said:
• the length of time it had taken to deal with the complaint had caused stress and delay;
• he had already explained that he could not provide historic fuel receipts, but it should be obvious his son needed to put fuel in the car; and
• his son paid them rent but there was no formal rent agreement as he did not have the mental capacity to sign one.
12. When the Council replied in July, it noted Mr X had suggested his son pay a reduced contribution and the Council write off the backdated charges. It said:
• it had told Mr X about the minimum income guarantee on many occasions and that he could request DRE, but he had not submitted any receipts;
• the decision to commit all mobility benefits to secure a vehicle was done with the knowledge that no further benefit was provided for buying petrol;
• it did not follow that the cost of petrol was DRE. DRE was the difference between normal everyday expenditure and additional costs that relate to the disability. Petrol used to access local community services would be considered an everyday cost because everyone is expected to travel to go shopping, access leisure facilities and visit family and friends.
13. Mr X told me the money his son pays in housing costs is used to pay for food, electricity and for living in their home.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

14. 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 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.
15. The Council’s DRE Practice Guidance says:

“Usual transport costs should be met through the person’s Disability Living Allowance/Personal Independence Payment Mobility Component and through any existing travel concessions such as a bus pass.”

16. The Council is entitled to expect people to provide evidence of the expenses they are claiming. This may be in the form of receipts or other evidence of regular payments (e.g. bank statements). The Council was not at fault for saying the cost of petrol would not necessarily be DRE. Only costs a disabled person incurs because of their disability, which they would not incur if they were not disabled, count as DRE.
17. With regard to housing related costs, it appears Mr X has not provided any evidence of these. The Council has explained what these would have to be under the 2014 Regulations. It is not at fault as the money Mr X’s son pays his parents is used to pay for food and electricity, as well as for living in their home. Many households pool resources to pay for things such as food, water charges and energy costs, but these are not housing related costs to be disregarded under the 2014 Regulations.
18. The Council was slow to respond to Mr X’s complaint between March and June 2022 and apologised for the delay. That is sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. The delay does not provide grounds for me to recommend waiving outstanding charges or reducing Mr Y’s charge.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been no fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a further remedy to the apology already given.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman