Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council gave inaccurate advice causing the complainant to suffer a financial loss. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council gave her wrong advice which means she has lost £200 a month in benefits.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I listened to the phone call between Ms X and the Council. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Universal Credit

4. If people claim Universal Credit (UC) their Tax Credits stop.

What happened

5. Ms X was sent home to shield due to Covid-19. She rang the Council on 24 March to ask for advice. Ms X said she had been sent home from work and did not know if she would get any money (pay) from her employer. She said her employer had said the government might help. She expressed uncertainty about whether she would have a job to go back to. She said she received Working Tax Credits (WTC) of £54 a week. Ms X did not say she would be receiving help through the furlough scheme; Ms X did not mention furlough. When the officer asked if she would receive any pay, Ms X said she did not know, she was uncertain and she had been told to stay ay home.
6. The adviser suggested Ms X apply for UC. This was based on the information from Ms X that her only income was WTC. The adviser said the WTC would stop. Ms X asked if she would be able to go back onto WTC; the adviser said no.
7. On 3 April Ms X told the Council she had been receiving furlough payments since 24 March. This means Ms X was getting 80% of her normal wage. It seems likely Ms X did not know about the furlough payments when she rang the Council on 24 March.
8. Ms X applied for UC and her WTC stopped. Ms X did not qualify for UC because of the furlough payments.
9. Ms X complained to the Council. She said that when she called she said she was getting furlough payments and she should not have been advised to claim UC, especially as that would lead to the loss of the WTC. In response the Council listened to the call. The Council said Ms X had not said she was on furlough and the adviser suggested she apply for UC as Ms X had said her only income was WTC. The Council also said that the adviser had said the WTC would end.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ilistened to the call recording and I listened to it again after Ms X commented on the draft decision. Ms X did not say she was getting furlough payments. The only income she reported was the WTC. Given that Ms X said her only income was £54 a week and she did not know if she would keep her job, or get any pay, then it was not fault for the Council to suggest she apply for UC. In addition, when Ms X asked if she could go back on to WTC, the adviser said no. The adviser explained that if, when Ms X went back to work, her pay was below a certain level, then UC would continue to provide a top-up.
11. It is unfortunate the UC claim was unsuccessful, and that Ms X has lost her WTC. However, there is nothing to suggest this is due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman