Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Miss X by Adult Social Care Services. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her direct payment account. She said it increased her client contributions and reduced her allocated care hours without an assessment. She wants the Council to reduce her contributions and increase her hours of care.

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. (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

Charging

5. Miss X wants to pay a smaller client contribution towards her care due to financial hardship.
6. We previously investigated a complaint from Miss X that the Council wrongly reduced her hours of care and failed to properly consider her Disability Related Expenses (DRE). We found the Council failed to provide full information and properly advise Miss X regarding DRE and therefore recommended it to undertake a review of Miss X’s DRE.
7. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care.
8. The Council completed the DRE in December 2024 and updated her financial assessment. It then completed an annual update in April 2025.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The financial assessments show that both DRE and the MIG were applied correctly. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault.
10. The Council said the assessment could change because of additional information Miss X provided in September 2025.

Care needs assessment

11. A care needs assessment took place in November 2024 which reduced Miss X’s hours to 28 per week.
12. The Council then received a request from its care payments team to review her care following large withdrawals from Miss X’s direct payment account.
13. The assesment took place in May 2025 which recorded that there should be an increase in Miss X hours to ensure her needs were met. However, the assessment also recorded Miss X was not using the hours allocated for social activities because of mobility difficulties. The Council advised Miss X the social activity hours could be used flexibly in other areas to meet her needs. It also made a referral to physiotherapy to help improve Miss X’s mobility. Therefore, Miss X remained in receipt of 28 hours of care.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council reviewed Miss X’s care and support needs and considered her views. The most recent care needs assessment identified Miss X did not need her allocated social activities hours and these were sufficient to cover her additional morning care needs. The Council agreed to review the assessment once Miss X’s mobility improved. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
15. The Council is currently undertaking the agreed review. If Miss X is unhappy with the assesment, she would need to make a new complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman