Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has incorrectly reduced the disability related expenses allowed in his brother’s financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has incorrectly reduced the disability related expenses allowed in his brother’s financial assessment.

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 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s brother, Mr Z, receives care and support. The Council completed a financial assessment to determine how much Mr Z needs to contribute towards his care and support.
6. In Mr Z’s April 2024 financial assessment, the Council allowed just over £53 in disability related expenses (DRE). In May 2024, the Council has allowed just over £40. This Council said this was based on the evidence provided by Mr X of Mr Z’s actual expenses.
7. Mr X is unhappy the Council has reduced Mr Z’s DRE and feels the Council is overcharging his brother for his care and support.
8. The Council explained to Mr X it was no longer allowing Mr Z’s transport costs as DRE. This was due to Mr Z’s mobility component of his personal independence payment (PIP) increasing from just over £28 per week to just under £76 per week. When Mr Z was receiving £28 per week, this amount was less than the actual transport costs he incurred. Therefore, the Council allowed the difference as DRE.
9. However, the situation now is Mr Z’s PIP is more than the actual cost of transport. Mr Z’s PIP payments are disregarded in the financial assessment. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Council to disregard Mr Z’s transport costs again as DRE.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has completed the financial assessment in line with guidance and properly considered all relevant evidence. I am also satisfied the Council has provided a clear explanation to Mr X as to why Mr Z’s transport costs are not longer being allowed as DRE.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman