Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Miss B’s disability related and cultural haircare needs when it applied its charging policy on disability related expenditure. The Council remedied the injustice caused to Miss B when it investigated her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council’s failed to recognise and adequately support her and her daughter’s cultural and disability related needs. She says the Council refused to accept essential haircare costs based on her needs as disability related expenditure as she cannot provide receipts. Miss B says the cost of essential haircare impacts on her ability to pay the contribution towards her care costs, and this has resulted in a debt accumulating.
2. Miss B says the situation caused her significant distress, anxiety and feelings of depression which impacted on her health and general wellbeing. Miss B wants the Council to cancel the debt, revise its charging policy and direct payment procedures to reflect the cultural needs of residents. She also wants it to and arrange mandatory cultural competency training for its staff.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss B previously complained to the Ombudsman about similar issues in 2019. We upheld her complaint and made recommendations. Miss B said since this date she has encountered issues with the Council regarding direct payments and its consideration of disability related expenditure to meet her cultural haircare needs arising from her disability.
7. The Council initially considered Miss B’s complaint at stage one of its procedures. It said the Miss B’s need for culturally appropriate haircare had been clearly identified and acknowledged when support planning. It said the requirement to provide receipts became a barrier to providing direct payments for haircare. The Council then said it had completed a review and agreed five hours weekly for haircare without the requirement to provide receipts. It apologised to Miss B and offered her a £100 symbolic payment to acknowledge the anxiety and distress she had experienced.
8. Miss B remained unhappy with the Council’s response as it did not provide her with the answers or explanations she had expected. She asked the Council to respond to her complaint at stage two of its procedures.
9. The Council investigated Miss B’s complaint it acknowledged the first response did not recognise the seven-year history of Miss B’s unmet need. It apologised for this error. It also said its officers should have used discretion in line with the
   Care Act 2014 when considering whether Miss B needed to provide receipts for her essential haircare. It said it had acknowledged the cultural significance of Miss B’s haircare verbally, but it had not reflected the cultural significance in its decision making.
10. The Council acknowledged the severity and length of impact on Miss B and set out agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused to her. It agreed to reimburse
    Miss B for the payments she had made to meet her haircare needs from January 2019. It said it would deduct payments Miss B owed for contributions towards her care since June 2023 from the total reimbursement amount. It confirmed the payment it would make to Miss B after deductions would be £5801.82. It apologised and offered a symbolic payment of £500 to Miss B.
11. The Council confirmed it would complete a direct payments audit once it had paid the reimbursement payment to Miss B. To improve the Council said it would improve cultural competency within its assessment and care planning processes. It also said it would provide training on using discretion in line with the
    Care Act 2014.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council remedied the injustice caused to Miss B when it investigated her complaint. During its investigation it acknowledged the significant impact caused to Miss B because of its fault. This is good practice. The Council provided a proportionate and reasonable remedy for the personal injustice caused to Miss B. It also reflected on its processes and identified specific service improvements to ensure wider learning and awareness for its staff. This is good practice. It is unlikely we could achieve more if we were to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the Council remedied the injustice caused to Miss B by its fault when it investigated her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman