Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing one of Miss X’s applications for a test and trace support payment. The evidence shows the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refused her application for a £500 test and trace support payment on the grounds that it had already given her a payment for an overlapping period. She says the refusal caused distress and inconvenience as she believed she was entitled to the second payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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”.
3. 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. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Government introduced the £500 test and trace support payment to give some support to people who would lose income from having to self-isolate or from having to take time off work to look after a child who had to self-isolate. It was not a payment just for catching COVID-19 or for having to self-isolate. The eligibility criteria were set nationally by the government in guidance to councils. This said an applicant could not receive more than one payment for self-isolation periods that contained any overlap.
7. Miss X’s child had to self-isolate from 17 to 27 November 2021. The Council gave Miss X a payment for that. Miss X then had to self-isolate from 20 to 30 November 2021. The Council refused a payment for that period.
8. The periods for which Miss X claimed overlapped by several days. There was no fault in the Council following the Government guidance that people are not eligible for a second payment in those circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman