Summary: Mr Q complained the Council’s Welfare Rights Service did not attend a Tribunal hearing with him. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr Q complained the Council’s Welfare Rights Service (the Service) did not attend a Tribunal hearing with him. He said the lack of support meant his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeal was unsuccessful. He thinks he lost money because of this.

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 considered the information Mr Q provided and the information the Council provided.
5. Mr Q and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) decides what benefits people can receive. One of these benefits is Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This is a benefit for people who may need help because of disability or long-term illness.
7. People can challenge decisions made by the DWP. First, they can ask the DWP to look at the decision again. That is called ‘mandatory reconsideration’. If that is unsuccessful, they can appeal to the Tribunal. The Service can help some people with their appeal and at the Tribunal.

What happened

8. The Service received a referral to help Mr Q with his PIP appeal. It met with Mr Q and his sister in April 2018. In that meeting the case records show the Service told Mr Q it would not represent him at the Tribunal. Mr Q’s sister said that she would support him. The Service agreed to meet with Mr X and his sister before the Tribunal to prepare them. Mr Q disagrees with the Service’s records. He said the Service said it would support him at the Tribunal.
9. Mr Q telephoned the Service in June 2018 to tell it he had a Tribunal date for the end of August 2018. The Service agreed to meet with Mr Q at the start of August to help prepare him for Tribunal.
10. Mr Q took a friend to that meeting. The case records show the Service told Mr Q again that it would not attend the Tribunal because it could not add anything further to Mr Q’s appeal bundle. The case records show that Mr Q’s friend took detailed notes of advice given by the Service.
11. Mr Q attended the Tribunal with a friend. The records of the hearing record him having no difficulties responding to the Tribunal’s questions. The Tribunal decided not to award Mr Q PIP. The decision summary shows it considered medical evidence and supporting information provided by Mr Q when it made that decision.
12. Mr Q complained to the Council. He said he lost his appeal because it did not provide him with a support worker at the hearing. He believes he lost out on a PIP because of this. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.

The Council’s response to enquiries

13. The Council said a different organisation prepared the information for Mr Q’s mandatory reconsideration. It said that information was “detailed, technical and addressed all health issues reported by the client”. It said there was nothing further the Service could add. It included that information in Mr Q’s appeal bundle alongside specialist assessments about Mr Q.

My findings

14. The Service’s case records show it told Mr Q it would not represent him at the Tribunal when it met with him in April 2018. I have seen no evidence to support Mr Q’s statement that the Service said it would attend the Tribunal with him at that time. The Service did not have to provide an officer to attend the Tribunal hearing. The Council was not at fault.
15. The Council has explained why it did not send an officer to Mr Q’s Tribunal hearing. It said it could add nothing further to Mr Q’s appeal bundle. There is no fault in how the Council made that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council was not at fault for its decision not to support Mr Q at Tribunal therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman