Summary: Mr D complains that the Council refused his application for crisis funding because he did not submit the evidence it requested within 24 hours. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because, although it extended the deadline for submitting the evidence, it failed to inform Mr D it had done so. However, this fault did not cause Mr D a significant injustice because the Council later reviewed all the evidence he provided and made a fresh decision. The Ombudsman cannot interfere with that decision because it was properly made.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains that the Council refused his application for crisis funding because he did not submit the evidence it requested within 24 hours.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr D and considered the Council’s written response to our enquiries and the documents it provided.
5. Mr D and the Council were sent a draft decision and I have considered their comments in response.

Back to top

Findings

Key facts

6. Mr D has two children with disabilities. His eldest child is in receipt of disability living allowance and Mr D is in receipt of carer’s allowance for his younger child.
7. On 29 October 2018 Mr D made an application to the Council for financial assistance to buy food, gas and electricity, a fridge freezer and a dishwasher.
8. The Council asked Mr D to provide supporting evidence, including a bank statement for the last month, within 24 hours. Mr D responded explaining he would be unable to do this and would try to provide the information by 31 October 2018. When he failed to do so, the Council closed the application.
9. Mr D provided the information requested on 2 November 2018. The Council responded explaining his application had been closed because he had not provided the evidence within the agreed timeframe. The email also explained that, as Mr D had withdrawn large amounts of money over the previous two weeks, officers assumed funds were available to him to purchase food and utilities.
10. Mr D submitted a formal complaint about the decision to require supporting evidence within 24 hours. He said this was an unreasonable timeframe for someone looking after two severely disabled children.
11. The Council reviewed its decision on whether to award financial assistance to Mr D. The reviewing officer wrote to Mr D on 20 November 2018 asking him to provide additional information by 27 November 2018. When he failed to do so, the officer extended his deadline to 6 December 2018. Mr D provided the information, including bank statements, on 9 December 2018. An officer assessed all the information to determine whether it met the criteria for financial assistance. He wrote to Mr D on 14 December 2018 explaining he was not eligible for funding because there was no evidence to suggest he had insufficient funds to feed his family and pay energy bills.
12. The Council considered Mr D’s complaint about the 24-hour deadline under its complaints procedure. It explained that, when Mr D advised he could not provide the evidence until 31 October 2018, it extended the deadline to that date. When the revised deadline was not met, it closed the application. But the Council accepted it did not respond to Mr D’s email and agree the new deadline with him. It partially upheld the complaint because, although it had properly applied the eligibility criteria, its communication with Mr D about the deadline was below the standard expected.

Analysis

13. Mr D says the Council was at fault because it provided an unrealistic timescale for him to submit the information. He says he could not meet the deadline because he had to travel some distance to collect the information and could not leave his children unsupervised.
14. The Council has explained that when dealing with urgent applications for crisis funding it normally requires applicants to provide information within a 24-hour period because the aim is to process applications as quickly as possible. However, it accepts staff in the department dealing with the application did not communicate properly with Mr D regarding the deadline. The Council has apologised and has issued a reminder to staff that in future, if an applicant provides a valid reason for not being able to provide evidence within 24 hours, they should use their discretion to increase the timeframe and inform the applicant of the revised deadline.
15. I find the Council was at fault in that, although officers did exercise discretion to allow Mr D extra time to submit the required information, they did not inform him of the revised date. They should also have considered exercising discretion to consider the information once it was received on 2 November 2018.
16. Where the Ombudsman finds a Council has acted with fault, he can recommend a remedy for any injustice which that fault caused to the person affected. In this case, the Council’s fault did not cause Mr D a significant injustice. This is because the Council reviewed its decision in December 2018 after giving him additional time to provide evidence. The reviewing officer then considered all the evidence Mr D provided before reaching a decision that he did not meet the eligibility criteria because there was no evidence to suggest he had insufficient funds to feed his family and pay energy bills. Because this decision was properly made, taking account of all the information Mr D had provided, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of it.
17. I have concluded that, even if the Council had allowed Mr D extra time to submit the evidence in October 2018, it would not have changed the outcome. The application would have been refused because the Council was satisfied Mr D did not meet the criteria for funding.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I find the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr D of the revised deadline for submitting evidence in support of his application. But I do not consider that fault caused him a significant injustice because the council subsequently reviewed its decision, taking account of all the evidence he provided. Mr D has been put back into the position he would have been in but for the Council’s fault. No further remedy is therefore warranted.
19. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman