Summary: Miss C complains about the way the Council dealt with dividing a water bill at her son’s home; his disability related expenses and his service contributions. Miss C says she has spent unnecessary time and trouble in complaining and the Council has not treated her son as an individual leading to overpayment of his care contributions and paying for other’s use of water at the property. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the way it notified and invoiced charges but considers the action the Council has already taken of waiving charges is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complains about the way the Council has dealt with:

• dividing a water bill at her son’s home;
• his disability related expenses; and
• his service contributions.

2. Miss C says because of the Council’s fault, she has spent unnecessary time and trouble in complaining and the Council has not treated her son as an individual leading to overpayment of his care contributions and paying for other’s use of water at the property.

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 a council’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. We may investigate complaints from a person affected by the matter in the complaint, or from someone the person has authorised in writing to act for him or her. If the person has died or cannot authorise someone to act, we may investigate a complaint from a personal representative or from someone we consider suitable to represent the person affected. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
5. 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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Miss C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Miss C after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Miss C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

7. Councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges may only cover the cost the council incurs. (Care Act 2014, section 14)
8. Where a council has decided to charge it must carry out a financial assessment of what a person can afford to pay and provide a written record of that assessment. A council should assess disability-related expenses (DREs) and allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability related expenditure.

Key events

9. The Court of Protection decided in 2013 that Miss C’s son lacked the capacity to make decisions about the management of his property and affairs or to enter into a tenancy and/or licence agreement relating to his accommodation needs. The Court decided it was in his best interests to reside at a named property and to receive a care package in accordance with his assessed needs. The Council signed a tenancy agreement as directed by the Court. The Council has provided a copy of the Court Order and tenancy agreement.
10. The tenancy started in February 2015 and ended in September 2018. The tenancy agreement stated the property was part of a project to provide supported housing for people with a learning disability or mental health need.

Service contributions

11. Following a financial assessment in May 2016 the Council assessed that Miss C’s son should contribute to his care fees. The Council has provided a copy of the financial assessment which is signed by Miss C and a copy of its charging policy booklet provided to service users and their representatives.
12. The Council identified through a direct payment audit in December that the client contribution had not been paid. The amount outstanding at that time was £208. The Council waived this amount.
13. The assessed client contribution began to exceed the weekly direct payment from April 2017 onwards. The Council should have started to send invoices for the difference between the assessed weekly contribution and the gross amount of the direct payment at this point. The Council has accepted it failed to do so and arrears of £359.27 occurred as a result. The Council accepted it was at fault in not issuing the invoices and waived the arrears. The Council issued invoices from November 2017.
14. The Council has confirmed it has also amended the final invoice prepared before Miss C’s son moved home to reflect the actual date he moved out.
15. The Council has confirmed it is seeking £284 in outstanding care contributions from November 2017 to the date the tenancy ended in September 2018.
16. However, Miss C considers the Council should not have sought a client contribution towards the cost of her son’s care because the PFI scheme that created his accommodation included funding for Housing Related Support.
17. The Council advised Miss C that the meaning of Housing Related Support was the building and maintenance of suitable accommodation where people with learning disabilities and mental health needs can receive care. The Council says the PFI scheme did not provide any funding for care and support services. The Council has confirmed the funding for social care support was from the Council’s Joint Commissioning Service through a funded support plan which included all the social care support services delivered to Miss C’s son.
18. The Council is entitled to seek a contribution for the cost of Miss C’s son’s social care support under the Care Act 2014. I consider the contributions the Council has already waived are enough to remedy the invoicing faults identified above and the Ombudsman would not seek more.

Disability related expenses (DREs)

19. Miss C says there were costs that the Council had failed to consider for the 3 days each week he spent at her home.
20. The 2016 financial assessment included DREs for excess laundry and excess clothing was added in 2017.
21. The Council considered the tenancy for the supported living placement was the primary residence for Miss C’s son and he received housing benefit to fund that permanent accommodation. The Council noted the arrangement where Miss C’s son still spent 3 days at her home was a choice Miss C had made. The Council explained that because the financial assessment left Miss C’s son with a weekly cost of living allowance of £151.45, it would expect him to use some of this to meet any reasonable costs incurred whilst staying at her property. The Council invited Miss C to submit a list of any DRE she considered was not included in her son’s financial assessment in May 2018. Miss C did not do so. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered DREs.
22. The Council completed a further financial assessment after Miss C’s son returned to live at her home in September 2018 and included an additional DRE for bedding.

Water bill

23. Miss C’s son was a tenant in a shared house with other individuals. The tenancy agreement stated the tenant was responsible to meet all outgoings applying to the property “including water charges, electricity and gas supply, telephone and television charges whether metered or billed”.
24. In line with both the tenancy agreement and the usual arrangements for sharing bills in these circumstances the Council considered the bills should be divided equally between the tenants. However, Miss C considered her son should not pay an equal share of the water bill at the property as he spent 3 days a week at her home.
25. The Council did contact the water company to ask about the possibility of invoicing tenants individually or if a smart water meter could identify daily usage so that the bill could be adjusted accordingly. However, the water company advised all tenants were jointly and severally liable for the water charges irrespective of their own water usage and it did not install smart meters.
26. The Council subsequently confirmed this information to Miss C and that the water bill would be divided equally between the tenants. I see no fault in the Council’s approach.
27. During the period that Miss C disputed her son’s share of the water bill the care provider paid a resulting shortfall totalling £139.21. The care provider is not seeking to recover this amount.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. This is because although there was fault by the Council in the way it notified and invoiced charges, I consider it has already provided a suitable remedy through its own actions as set out above and the Ombudsman would not seek a further remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman