Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered and decided to withhold a COVID-19 self-isolation support payment. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss G.
2. Miss G complains the Council withheld a COVID-19 self-isolation support payment she applied for, because it believed she had broken the self-isolation rules. Miss G says this is untrue, and the Council’s decision caused her financial difficulty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I reviewed Miss G’s correspondence with the Council, and with another local authority.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss G lives and works in the Council’s area. In December 2021, she tested positive for COVID-19, which meant she was legally required to self-isolate.
8. On 27 December, Miss G applied to the Council for a self-isolation support payment of £500. On the form she recorded her isolation period was from 18 December to 28 December, and that she was unable to work during this time.
9. On 24 January 2022 the Council wrote to Miss G explaining it had refused her application. It said this was because her bank statements showed she had not self-isolated “for the period 18/12/21 to 24/12/21 inclusive”. The Council explained there was no right of appeal against its decision but invited Miss G to discuss it.
10. Miss G replied to the Council disputing she had broken the self-isolation rules. She said she had tested positive “on the morning of 21st of December” which meant her isolation period was between 21 and 27 December. On 24 December, her mother had collected her and taken her to the family home (which is in a different local authority area) so she was not alone while she was unwell.
11. Miss G said she had given her bank card to a friend to purchase food for her on 22 and 24 December, which explained the card payments showing on her bank statements for these dates; and she had given the card again to her sister on 26 December. Miss G said she had isolated away from her family while she was at home. She criticised the Council for saying her bank statements showed she did not self-isolate, and asked for the decision to be reviewed.
12. The Council replied on 3 February to say Miss G would need to apply to the other council, as this was where she said she had self-isolated. It said she should do so quickly because of the 42 day time limit for applications, but explained she could use this email as proof her original application was in time.
13. Miss G made a new application the other council. However, it refused this because it could not verify her claim with the NHS Test and Trace system, due to Miss G entering her Brighton postcode when she registered her positive test.
14. Miss G then made a complaint to the other council. It replied on 24 May, and while it did not uphold her complaint, it said it could find nothing in the Government self-isolation guidance to say a council could not pay a support payment to a person who isolated in a different council area.
15. Miss G then contacted Brighton & Hove City Council again and asked it to review its decision.
16. The Council responded on 3 August. It noted Miss G’s explanation she had given her bank card to others to make purchases for her, but said both her bank and the Council strongly advised against doing this. It also questioned why Miss G had not simply transferred money electronically instead of lending her card, noting she had regularly done this on other occasions.
17. The Council also noted Miss G had used a smartphone-based payment app on 18 and 28 December, had paid in a cheque on 28 December, and by her own admission had travelled away from home on 24 December. It said it could not accept she had fully self-isolated for the required period and was therefore not entitled to the support payment.
18. The Council also commented it had no influence over the other council’s decision not to award Miss G a self-isolation payment.
19. Miss G then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 August.

Back to top

Analysis

20. In 2020 the Government introduced a support payment scheme for people who were required to self-isolate, either because they had tested positive for COVID-19 or had been in close contact with someone who had. To be eligible for this scheme, applicants had to show they had lost income as a result of their isolation, and were in receipt of certain benefits.
21. Around the same time the Government allowed local authorities to set up their own discretionary support schemes, for people who had lost income as a result of isolation, but who were not in receipt of a qualifying benefit.
22. There is nothing in the information I have seen which expressly indicates which scheme Miss G applied to. However, I note her application form does not mention benefits, and for this reason I will assume it was a local discretionary support scheme.
23. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider what effect it had on the outcome and ask the council to address this.
24. But we cannot make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, and we do not provide a right of appeal against their decisions. If there is no fault in how a council has made a decision, we cannot criticise it, not matter how strongly a complainant may feel it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because somebody disagrees with what a council has done.
25. The Council decided to refuse Miss G’s application because it considered her bank statements showed she had spent money in shops (indicating she had left home) during the isolation period. Although Miss G says she gave her card to people to use on her behalf, this would not explain the smartphone app payments on 18 and 28 December, nor the cheque payment on 28 December.
26. I do note, in her response to the Council’s refusal, Miss G said she tested positive on 21 December, and was required to isolate until 27 December. This would mean these payments fell outside her isolation period. And, at the time of these events, the law allowed people to end their normal 10-day isolation period after six days, if they continuously tested negative for COVID-19. I accept, therefore, Miss G’s isolation period could have only lasted six days.
27. However, in her application form, Miss G wrote that her isolation period was 18 December to 28 December. Given, especially, that she made her application on 27 December, it is difficult to see how she could have entered the wrong dates at that point.
28. Either way, the Council was entitled to rely on the dates Miss G put in her application form, and so I consider it could logically use the unexplained payments to question whether Miss G adhered to the self-isolation rules.
29. And, further to this, there is in fact no question Miss G did not remain in isolation at home in Brighton, as by her own admission she left to go to her family home on 24 December.
30. Taking this together, I am satisfied the Council was entitled to draw the conclusion it did here, and that there is no fault in this decision.
31. The Government issued guidance for both types of self-isolation support schemes. At page 28 of the guidance, it says:

“Local authorities will focus on the principle of encouraging, educating and supporting self-compliance – they will not be expected to enforce the legal requirements. Local authorities should pass on the details of anyone they suspect of breaking the rules to the police. Where there is clear evidence that someone is not following the rules, the police will determine what follow-up action to take and, where necessary, issue fixed penalty notices.”

32. The guidance does not suggest councils should withhold payment from applicants (who would otherwise qualify) where there is evidence they have broken the rules. It is arguable, therefore, that even though the Council considers Miss G broke the rules, it should have made the payment anyway, and then reported the matter to the police as a possible enforcement issue.
33. However, equally, the guidance does not say councils should not withhold payment under these circumstances. The purpose of the self-isolation payment schemes was to support people precisely because the law meant they could not leave home to go to work. This being the case, I consider it would be illogical to find fault with the Council for withholding a payment under these circumstances, even accepting the Government guidance did not give it the explicit power to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman