Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a test and trace support payment when she was forced to self-isolate because of COVID-19. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. It was therefore entitled to refuse Mrs X’s application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a grant when she was forced to self-isolate because of COVID-19 rules.
2. Mrs X said the Council’s decision caused her financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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)
4. 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)
5. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council.
• The Council’s Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payment Scheme (2 December 2020).
7. Mrs X 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

Test and trace support payment

8. The Government set up a scheme for councils to make a support payment of £500 to people on low income who faced financial hardship by having to self-isolate because of COVID-19.
9. To be eligible under the scheme at the time of Mrs X’s application, a person must have been currently receiving a state benefit, such as universal credit, housing benefit, or income support.
10. People who did not meet the eligibility criteria may instead have been entitled to a discretionary payment from their local council.
11. The Government said it was up to local councils to create their own discretionary schemes and decide what counts as low income and financial hardship.

The Council’s discretionary support payment scheme

12. To qualify for a discretionary payment, the Council said applicants must be earning a low income, and the loss of earnings should cause a fundamental change to their weekly income. Applicants had to show:
• They earned between £100 and £370 a week before self-isolating.
• They did not have savings of more than £2,000.

What happened

13. I have included below some of the key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. In February 2021, Mrs X was alerted by the NHS that she had been in contact with someone who had contracted COVID-19. As a result, Mrs X had to self-isolate for ten days. She was unable to work from home and so could not earn any income for that ten-day period.
15. Mrs X applied to the Council for a test and trace support payment on 18 February. She said she received universal credit.
16. The Council refused Mrs X’s application on 19 February. It said she was not currently in receipt of a qualifying benefit.
17. Mrs X asked the Council to reconsider. She gave it details of her universal credit account. She said she was in extreme financial hardship because of her self-isolation.
18. Mrs X chased the Council for an answer on 24 and 26 February. She then emailed her local councillor on 17 March to ask for their help. She acknowledged she earned more than the Council’s threshold, but she asked if the Council would exercise discretion because her income was reduced by £400, and she had since been made homeless.
19. The Council liaised with Mrs X’s local councillor. It said the Government made clear the discretionary funding was to target low-income households and was not a catch all for those who did not qualify under the main scheme. It said it cannot pay everyone and Mrs X’s income was about £100 over the threshold.
20. Mrs X emailed her local councillor again on 26 April. She argued she met the Government’s criteria. She said the Council had not explained why it would not award her the payment.
21. On 7 May, Mrs X asked the Council for a meeting to discuss her eligibility.
22. The Council repeated that Mrs X did not meet the criteria. It said she was not in receipt of universal credit, and she earned more than the threshold. It therefore saw no value in a meeting.
23. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 May 2021.

Response to enquiries

24. The Council told us Mrs X applied for a support payment under the mandatory scheme as she said she received universal credit. The Council checked this and found she was not in receipt of universal credit. It therefore refused her application.
25. The Council also checked Mrs X’s earnings. She earned more than £370 a week so did not qualify for a discretionary payment.
26. The Council said the Government told it to ensure its policy restricted payments to those on low incomes. The Government also gave the Council a limited fund to make payments from. The Council therefore designed its policy accordingly.

Back to top

Analysis

27. Mrs X said she met the Government’s criteria for a support payment because she received universal credit.
28. Mrs X has a universal credit account. However, her payments were reduced to nil in December 2020. At the time of her application for a support payment she was therefore not receiving universal credit payments.
29. After self-isolating in February, Mrs X’s income for that month fell. As a result, she told us she became eligible for universal credit again and received a payment in March 2021. However, it was a requirement for applicants to be currently in receipt of universal credit. At the time of her self-isolation and application to the Council Mrs X was not. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse her application.
30. Mrs X said her income was reduced due to self-isolating and she faced financial hardship. She also later became homeless.
31. The Government gave councils discretion to decide what counted as low income and financial hardship in their respective area. At the relevant time, the Council decided to define low income in its area as someone receiving less than £370 a week. It was entitled to set that criterion.
32. The Council checked Mrs X’s earnings with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the month before she applied for the support payment. Her income was above the Council’s threshold of £370 a week. Again, the Council was therefore entitled to refuse her application.
33. Homelessness was not part of the Council’s low income or financial hardship criteria, so was not a relevant consideration here. I understand Mrs X made a separate complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness application.
34. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider Mrs X’s application and reach our own decision on whether she is eligible for a support payment. Our role is to investigate how the Council reached its decision and whether it followed a proper decision-making process.
35. While I do not dismiss Mrs X’s claim she faced hardship, I am satisfied the Council properly considered her application. It considered all the evidence available to it and made its decision in line with the Government guidance and its own policy. I therefore find no fault in its decision making.

Back to top

Draft decision

36. I have completed my investigation. I found no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse Mrs X’s application for a test and trace support payment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman