Summary: We have not investigated this complaint, about the Council’s discretionary test and trace support scheme. This is because an investigation could not lead to a substantially different outcome, and nor could it provide the outcome the complainant seeks.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains the Council has refused two applications he made for financial support, under its discretionary test and trace and support scheme. Mr D claims the Council’s decision led to his employer’s decision to terminate him.
3. Mr D wishes the Council to pay him the grants he was refused, and compensate him for his loss of employment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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.
5. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr D’s correspondence with the Council, and the Council’s discretionary test and trace support scheme.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. In early 2021, the NHS COVID-19 test and trace service instructed Mr D to self-isolate on two separate occasions.
9. On each occasion, Mr D applied to the Council for a payment from its discretionary support scheme. The Council refused both applications because Mr D’s recent average weekly income was above the threshold of £400, as set out in its policy.
10. Mr D complains the Council did not follow its own policy criteria. He said, because of its refusal of his applications, his employer invented false reasons to terminate his contract, to avoid recognising his “multiple … isolations and its financial consequences”.

Back to top

Analysis

11. I do not consider we should investigate Mr D’s complaint.
12. I have reviewed the Council’s discretionary scheme policy. It sets out, clearly, it will not make a payment to a person who, “immediately prior to the self-isolation period”, was earning more than £400 per week before tax.
13. The Council’s correspondence with Mr D shows it considered the payslips he submitted with each application, and that, on average, he had been earning more than £400 per week before tax. The Council’s decisions to refuse Mr D’s applications are therefore entirely consistent with the scheme’s criteria.
14. I note Mr D says the Council has not followed its own criteria, but I see no evidence of that here. It is also not for us to challenge the Council’s criteria, as these are for the Council to decide, and we have no power to intervene or over-rule the Council’s decision. We cannot recommend Mr D receive a payment he is not entitled to under the Council’s scheme.
15. It is also not clear what link there is between the refusal of Mr D’s application and his employer’s decision to terminate him. However, there are no circumstances under which we could hold the Council responsible for the employer’s decision. If Mr D feels his employer has wrongly terminated him, this is a private matter for him to pursue.
16. An investigation by us will not lead to a substantially different outcome here, or provide Mr D with what he wants, and is therefore not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have not investigated this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman