London Borough of Harrow

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult social care charging by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

Mr X says the Council has failed to correctly assess his expenses when charging him for care. He says the Council failed to allow for his transport and living costs.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council’s assessment of Mr X’s means allowed for items of disability-related expenditure (DRE) and adhered to the minimum income guarantee (MIG). But the Council took the view that it was his personal choice to use a significant amount of his income to buy and maintain a vehicle, including taking out a loan, and not a matter of necessary DRE. I note the sum Mr X claimed as living expenses was not explained by him or clearly separable from the vehicle. Were we to investigate, we could not substitute another view simply because Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. And it is unlikely we would find the Council should have reached a different decision.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman