Summary: The Council’s failure to show how it had regard to government guidance and the Public Sector Equality Duty in deciding who would be eligible for the Household Support Fund was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150, and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s administration of its Household Support Fund. In particular, Mr X says the Council unfairly limited eligibility for the fund to residents receiving Universal Credit. Mr X says this discriminated against those vulnerable residents claiming other welfare benefits, like him. As a result, Mr X was not eligible for a payment from the Fund.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint. He says the Council refused to provide details of its decision making process or respond to specific questions he asked.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the organisation 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

Equality Act

10. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. The protected characteristics referred to in the Act are:
• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Marriage and civil partnership
• Pregnancy and maternity
• Race
• Religion or belief
• Sex
• Sexual orientation

Public sector equality duty

13. The broad purpose of the public sector equality duty is to consider equality and good relations in the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected in the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Household Support Fund - guidance

14. The Household Support Fund (HSF) is a government scheme to provide financial support to those households most in need. The scheme ran from October 2021 to March 2022. It was then extended to September 2022. Councils manage the scheme in their areas.
15. The government published guidance for councils on delivering the scheme in November 2021. This was updated in April 2022. For this complaint, the relevant version of the guidance is the one in place in November 2021. All references to the guidance in this decision are to the November 2021 version.
16. At least half of the funding had to go to households with children. Beyond this, councils had discretion about how to decide who was eligible for the scheme “based on their understanding of local need and with due regard to equality considerations.”
17. The guidance says councils should use the data and information available to identify and support a “broad cross section of vulnerable households in their area”. The guidance says councils may find the details about people claiming welfare benefits available from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) “useful in identifying those most in need.”
18. However, the guidance also says support is not restricted to households receiving welfare benefits. It says councils should also use other sources of information to identify vulnerable households.
19. The guidance says councils should have a “strong rationale” for its decision about who is eligible and how they will access the scheme. Councils should keep this under review to make sure funding is available to the people who need it most.
20. The guidance tells councils to consider how support provided through the scheme “impacts those with characteristics protected under the Equality Act.” It directs councils to “ensure people are not disadvantaged or treated unfairly by this scheme.”

The Council’s scheme

21. The Council decided how it would deliver the HSF in its area in November 2021.
22. It decided to provide vouchers to all those households with children who qualified for free school meals. It would also invite people claiming Universal Credit with incomes below a particular threshold to apply through an online form.
23. The Council’s recorded its decision on a form called “Record of operational decision”. The part of the form which asks for details of any other options considered says “none”.

My findings

24. In deciding to award most of the funding to households with children getting free school meals, the Council met the requirement to use at least half of the funding to help families with children. This is not fault.
25. However, in deciding to limit access to the remaining funding to those people in its area claiming Universal Credit, I consider the Council acted with fault for two reasons.
26. Firstly, the Council has not kept a detailed enough record to explain why it decided to limit the scheme in this way. Although the Council had discretion to decide how to deliver the scheme, its decision making should be open and accountable. This is the third of the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice, which we expect all councils to follow.
27. There is no evidence the Council considered any other sources of information besides welfare benefits, as recommended by the guidance. Nor is it clear why the Council decided to use only the data about Universal Credit recipients available from the DWP and not the information about recipients of other welfare benefits.
28. As a result, the Council cannot evidence the “strong rationale” for its targeting of support required by the guidance. This is fault.
29. Secondly, there is no evidence the Council had due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty in developing the eligibility criteria for the scheme. The guidance is clear that it should have.
30. The HSF was intended to support those vulnerable people in the Council’s area most in need. Many such people will be vulnerable due to protected characteristics such as age or disability.
31. For example, since no one over state pension age is eligible for Universal Credit, the Council’s decision excludes all such people from the scheme. If it had properly considered its PSED and the guidance, the Council should have recorded its justification for this approach. Failure to do so is fault.
32. I cannot say the Council discriminated against Mr X. This is because claiming a particular welfare benefit is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. However, the Council’s failure to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act may have affected others in the Council’s area who have not complained.

Complaint handling

33. Mr X complained to the Council about the scheme at both stages of the Council’s complaint procedure.
34. At both stages the responses to Mr X are brief and lack any detail. The Council failed to respond to the questions Mr X asked about the decision making and rationale for the scheme. This is fault.

Injustice

35. Where we find fault, we then consider whether the fault has caused an injustice.
36. Given the Council’s broad discretion to design and deliver the scheme, I cannot say that were it not for the fault, Mr X would have been eligible for the scheme. However, Mr X is left with uncertainty about whether a decision not affected by fault might have resulted in a scheme for which he would be eligible. This is an injustice to Mr X.
37. The Council’s failure to respond fully to his complaint at either stage of its process undermined Mr X’s trust in the Council and caused him avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter. This is an injustice to Mr X.
38. The Council’s failure to have due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty may also have caused injustice to other people in the Council’s area who have not complained.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing
• Pay Mr X £150
40. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
41. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Amend the template Record of Operational Decision form, and other similar forms, to include a question prompting officers to consider whether there are any equality implications from their decisions and justify these where identified.
• Remind relevant staff that records should contain enough detail to show the decision making process.
42. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman