Summary: Ms B complained that the Council removed the funding for transporting her daughter, Miss C, to a day centre three times a week. We found the Council applied its transport policy with a blanket approach, without considering Miss C’s individual circumstances. The Council has agreed to fully explain the disability related expenditure process to Ms B, invite her to provide the necessary evidence then carry out a financial assessment taking into account Miss C’s full circumstances.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that West Sussex County Council (the Council) had not considered her daughter Miss C’s situation properly in deciding to cease funding some of the transport costs to Miss C’s day centre. Specifically, it failed to consider Ms B is a single parent, cannot work since the day centre provision was reduced to three days a week and the mobility component of her disability benefits goes entirely towards funding the car to transport Miss C. This change has caused significant distress to Ms B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s Transport Policy January 2022

6. This policy says that the Council will only fund transport for people with social care needs where there is no suitable or appropriate alternative. It also says that people who are eligible for the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are expected to apply for the benefit and use it taking into account assessed needs.

Disability Related Expenditure

7. Councils can take disability-related benefits 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 disability-related expenditure (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.

What happened

8. Miss C is disabled and has significant care needs. She receives both the care and mobility components of PIP. The mobility component (£75.75 per week) pays for the costs of a car, so that her mother, Ms B, can transport Miss C. Ms B is her sole carer.
9. Miss C has been attending the same day centre for 18 years. It is 15 miles away from her home and the Council agrees it is the nearest suitable provision. She used to attend five days a week, but the Council reduced this to three some years ago. Ms B drives Miss C to and from the centre twice a day, a total of 60 miles making 180 miles a week.
10. The Council was providing money towards the cost of the travel, the assessment said this cost was on average £300 per month. Ms B says the Council paid her 54p per mile which works out at approximately £99 per week (£425 per month).
11. In July 2024 the Council reviewed Miss C’s care needs. It explained that the transport policy had changed in 2022, and that people were now expected to use their PIP payments to pay for transport so the Council’s funding would stop from August 2024.
12. Ms B complained at the end of August 2024 about the decision to stop the transport funding. The Council responded in early October 2024. It said that in the first instance it expected Miss C to use her PIP to fund the transport costs. If the transport costs exceeded the weekly amount of PIP, then a review would be carried out to determine whether this could be offset as DRE within the financial assessment.
13. Mrs C was unhappy with the response and requested the Council paid for half the costs.
14. The Council replied saying that it had applied the updated transport policy correctly to Miss C’s case. But it noted that Ms B had not asked for an updated financial assessment to take account of the extra transport costs she now had. It said it would make a referral to the finance team to make contact with Ms B to discuss this. It said it could also look for day centre opportunities close to their home.
15. The finance team contacted Ms B in December 2024 and February 2025 asking her to submit evidence of DRE as part of a financial assessment. It asked her to complete the form already provided or to contact the Council to discuss the situation further.
16. Ms B complained to us. She said she was not aware of DRE and did not realise it might reduce Miss C’s contribution towards her care costs.

Analysis

17. I understand Ms B is unhappy with change to the funding of the transport costs. But the Council can take account of a person’s eligibility for disability benefits as part of its consideration of care funding and it did not review Miss C’s situation until over two years after it made its change to the transport policy, meaning she benefitted from the funding for longer.
18. However, the Council, in reaching this decision has not fully considered Miss C’s situation but applied a blanket approach, removing the whole of the transport funding without considering Miss C’s individual circumstances. The Council agrees that the day centre is the nearest suitable provision and given that Miss C has attended for over 18 years it is unlikely that a move to an alternative would be reasonable. I have not seen evidence that the Council has considered the cost differential or the fact that Miss C uses the entire mobility component to fund the cost of a car through the motability scheme, so any fuel costs will be additional.
19. I welcome the offer to consider the extra costs through a financial assessment, but I do not consider it has explained this process properly to Ms B or what she needs to provide, to allay her fear that Miss C’s contribution may go up if a review is carried out. The current situation is causing financial hardship and distress to Ms B and Miss C.

Back to top

Action

20. In recognition of the injustice caused I recommended that the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• Contacts Ms B offering a meeting or telephone call to fully explain the DRE part of the financial assessment and what Ms B needs to provide to ensure the additional fuel costs are taken into account in the financial assessment.
• Once Ms B provides the necessary information the Council should carry out the reassessment promptly and consider backdating the outcome to the date the transport funding was removed.
21. The Council has agreed to the recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman