Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide funding through the Holiday Activity Fund for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about an officer’s conduct or the Council’s complaint handling because the Council already apologised and implemented service improvements. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
1. removed a Holiday Activity Fund (HAF) for her child, Y;
2. failed to apply the correct criteria when assessing Y for the HAF;
3. made inappropriate comments during a call; and
4. initially failed to respond to her complaint.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

Holiday Activity Fund

6. Mrs X applied for funding for Y through the Holiday Activity Fund (HAF). In a previous period, the Council provided funding using its discretion. For the most recent period, the Council decided Y did not meet the criteria for HAF funding.
7. In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X it reviews the local entitlement offer under the discretionary funding each year and explained Y did not meet the criteria for funding as part of the HAF programme in the most recent period.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s application for the HAF. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Conduct during a phone call

10. Mrs X complained about the conduct of a Council officer during a phone call.
11. In its complaint response the Council apologised for any distress caused. It told Mrs X it provided additional guidance to the officer for future contacts to ensure the issue does not reoccur.
12. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything else, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Response to Mrs X’s complaint

13. Mrs X complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint until she chased the Council after two weeks.
14. In its complaint response the Council apologised. It explained Mrs X sent the original complaint to an inbox that was not monitored frequently. It told Mrs X it had changed its processes to ensure the inbox is monitored more frequently to prevent recurrence.
15. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything else, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the reminder because an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman