Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the administration of a discretionary grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council causing the complainant significant enough injustice to warrant it, and it would be reasonable to pursue any discrimination claim in court.

The complaint

1. Mr K says the Council has:
1. awarded him only a £60 welfare grant from a discretionary fund rather than the £100 grant it awarded to certain single person households;
2. not paid him the grant in over six months in any event; and
3. not adjusted its procedures as he requires to meet the needs of his disabilities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr K’s complaint because the Council has:
1. explained why Mr K did not qualify for the higher level of grant and the difference between the two levels is not a significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating;
2. given Mr K different methods of accessing the grant payment including a telephone number to provide his bank details and we could not achieve more than this; and
3. adjusted its procedures but it would be reasonable for Mr K to pursue any claim of discrimination or failure to meet an Equality Act 2010 duty in court because only a court of law can decide such a claim.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman