Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of financial support provided by the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the lack of financial support and guidance she received from the Council whilst her sibling was residing with her. She says having her sibling live with her had a significant financial impact on her family.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y complained to the Council about the lack of financial support it provided her when her sibling (Z) began residing with her. The Council explained that Z was subject to a Child in Need (CIN) Plan at the time and not considered a looked after child. This means that the Council did not have financial responsibility for Z. Z’s parents had parental responsibility and remained financially responsible for Z. The Council explained that the decision for Z to live with Miss Y was considered an informal family arrangement.
7. From the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied that the Council was clear in its communications with Miss Y about this. During family meetings, the Council explained that Z’s parents were financially responsible for Z. It also supported Miss Y to claim Child Benefit and advised Z’s parents to stop claiming this because of where Z was residing.
8. Child Benefit is a UK government payment designed to help parents and guardians with the costs of raising a child. You do not need to retain parental responsibility for the child to claim Child Benefit, but the child needs to reside with the claimant.
9. On one occasion the Council provided a one-off discretionary payment to Miss Y but explained this was to support her with bills whilst she waited for her Child Benefit payment. The Council did not have a duty to provide this payment but decided it was necessary to use discretion at the time in response to a phone call received by Miss Y.
10. I understand Miss Y feels the Council was unsupportive, and it has apologised to her for this. However there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement and we will not investigate this complaint further. The Council had no legal duty to provide financial support for Z, and it was clear in its communications who retained financial responsibility for Z.
11. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman