Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about client contributions for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of her adult son, Mr Y, about how the Council calculated his care contributions. She said a change in the Council’s policy meant his contribution had increased significantly. She said that meant he could not afford to take part in activities that improved his quality of life. She wants the Council to review how it assesses charges for those on benefits.

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

5. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
6. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)
7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council had calculated Mr Y’s care costs. The Council has completed Mr Y’s financial assessment in accordance with Regulations. It has applied the MIG and applicable disability related expenditure before determining the contribution from the remaining disposable income. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it completed its assessment to justify our involvement.
8. Mrs X said the Council had changed its policy in 2019, which meant that it included Personal Independence Payment (PIP), in the financial assessment. The Council includes the PIP daily living amount but disregards the mobility element of PIP; that is in line with the Regulations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. In its contact with Mrs X, the Council explained that historically it had capped the client contribution at 80% of a person’s disposable income. However, it reviewed that policy in 2009 and removed the cap, meaning client contribution could be 100% of a person’s disposable income. We would not investigate any complaint about that change in policy as it occurred over a decade ago. Since that date legislation has changed, meaning there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by investigation. Additionally, legislation allows councils to consider all available disposable income; therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s policy.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman