Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s decision to take her husband’s earnings into account in assessing eligibility for Special Guardianship Allowance payments for her niece. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council is wrong to take into account her husband’s earnings when assessing eligibility for Special Guardianship Allowance (SGA) payments for her niece. She says she alone is mentioned on the Special Guardianship Order and that she had been told at the time of the Order that she would be financially supported.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms B and reviewed the information she provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2015 Ms B became the Special Guardian for her niece, Child X, because Child X’s mother could not look after her. Ms B says the Council persuaded her to accept this role and that at the time of the making of the court order to appoint her the Council told her she would be financially supported.
5. Ms B received SGA payments for Child X over the following years. However, recently, Ms B married and when the Council’s annual reassessment of her financial circumstances took place this year, it took into account her husband’s wages and as a result the household’s income is currently too high to receive SGA payments.
6. Ms B complained about this to the Council. It reassessed the household’s income based on the regular wages of Ms B’s husband, rather than the higher wages used initially, but the outcome did not change. The Council acknowledged that the report to the Court in 2015 had said that Ms B would be provided with financial support but that it also said her financial circumstances would be reviewed annually.
7. The Council explained to Ms B that it follows the relevant regulations and national guidance in making its assessment based on the total household income and that it was not possible to disregard her husband’s income as he is part of the household.

Assessment

8. While I agree with Ms B that the decision she made to become Child X’s guardian, when this had not been a role she had expected to fill, has been hugely beneficial for her niece, there is no evidence of fault by the Council in including her husband’s income in the financial assessment.
9. Ms B may not agree with this but the Council has properly followed its own policy and national guidance and there are no grounds on which to base an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman