Summary: There was fault in how the Council decided to refuse a Youth Club’s application for Holiday Activity and Food funding. This fault did not cause the Club any injustice because it did not provide the information the Council needed to decide the application properly. The Council’s failure to show due regard for its Public Sector Equality Duty was also fault. The Council agreed and has already implemented our recommendations to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of a Youth Club that the Council wrongly refused its application for Holiday Activity and Food funding. Mrs X says the Club is the only one in the area meeting the needs of Orthodox Jewish children.
2. As a result, she says Orthodox Jewish children cannot access the same provision in the holidays as other children in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant government guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mrs X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Holiday Activity and Food

9. Holiday Activity and Food (HAF) is a fund from the government councils use to provide free holiday provision to children and young people. The government published guidance for councils on administering the fund.
10. Councils should ensure there is provision available for all children who get free school meals because of their parent’s low income. Up to 15% of the fund can provide provision to children who don’t get free school meals. Councils are expected to make sure that eligible children can access provision that meets their needs.
11. The government guidance says councils should carry out mapping of available holiday provision in its area to make sure there is enough provision. Councils should consider this alongside information about where children who get free school meals live.
12. The guidance encourages councils to work with a wide range of providers, including community and voluntary organisations. In particular, organisations who have existing relationships with families and children. It encourages councils to work with nearby local authorities and set up cross-border working agreements. This is to make sure there is enough provision for children who live close to area boundaries.

Manchester’s HAF scheme

13. The Council invited bids for HAF funding from providers in its area in January 2023.
14. In its prospectus for potential bidders, the Council advised that to receive funding, organisations must be in Manchester and/or be working with Manchester’s residents.
15. The Council received more applications for funding than it had money available. A panel assessed applications against three main criteria:
• Quality of the offer
• Geographical location (to make sure provision met local need)
• Value for money

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

16. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
17. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

18. Mrs X applied to the Council for HAF funding on behalf of the Youth Club. The Youth Club is based just outside the Council’s boundary. It provides services for children and young people in the Orthodox Jewish community.
19. Mrs X explained to me that the religious and cultural needs of the Orthodox Jewish children and young people who attend the Youth Club include specific dietary needs and separate activities for children of different genders.
20. In February 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X refusing the request for funding. She asked the Council to explain why the bid was unsuccessful.
21. In early March, the Council wrote to Mrs X. It said “[w]hen we looked at your application it became apparent that your address and service delivery is in [another area] rather than Manchester and thus we are unable to fund you.”
22. Mrs X complained to the Council. In the complaint, she said the Youth Club was the only group providing holiday activities to the Orthodox Jewish community in Manchester which met their specific religious and cultural needs. It gets HAF funding from other councils to provide services to children from those areas. Mrs X said as a result, Orthodox Jewish children in Manchester would be unable to access the same services as their peers from across the boundary.
23. The HAF team wrote to Mrs X to ask for more information about the children who attended the Youth Club who lived in Manchester. Mrs X did not reply to this email.
24. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in March. It said it turned down the application for HAF funding because “the HAF team are required to fund provision based and delivered in Manchester”. It did not uphold the complaint.
25. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint process. She said the Council had no other offer for Orthodox Jewish children. She pointed out the government guidance about cross-boundary working.
26. The Council responded in April. It said:
• The fund was oversubscribed and so it had to prioritise service delivery in Manchester
• It asked Mrs X for more information about the children and schools the Youth Group worked with but Mrs X didn’t respond
• It understood the government guidance about cross-boundary working and followed this “where possible” but the extent of the demand for funding meant it could not do so in this instance.

My findings

27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had given Mrs X the chance to provide more information about the children using the scheme to help it decide whether to award any HAF funding. However, it did not do so until after it made its original decision not to fund the Youth Club.
28. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice include being open and accountable. This means we expect councils to state the criteria for decision making and give reasons for decisions. We expect councils to make decisions that are, and are seen to be, proportionate, appropriate, and fair.
29. I have seen no evidence to show the Council properly considered Mrs X’s application against its stated criteria of “quality of offer, geographical location (to ensure provision met local statistical need) and value for money” and recorded a reasoned decision. Rather, it appears to have decided it could not fund Mrs X’s application solely because it was outside its area. There is no evidence it considered whether despite being out of the area, the application met the needs of children and young people eligible for the scheme in its area.
30. This was not in line with the government guidance or the Ombudsman’s Principles and was fault.
31. However, Mrs X did not then take up the opportunity to provide further information to the Council in March. Had she done so, the Council might have revisited its decision considering the information about the children and their specific needs.
32. As it was, the information the Council had was that Mrs X was asking it to fund a provision outside its area for children who may be from its area and who may be eligible for free school meals or be otherwise vulnerable. The primary requirement of the HAF scheme is that at least 85% of the fund should provide activities for children who get free school meals. Mrs X’s evidence is that most of the children who use, or would use, the Youth Club attend private religious schools and cannot receive free school meals. This means that although there was fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot say that were it not for the fault, the Council would have decided to fund the Youth Club. Therefore, there is no injustice to Mrs X or the Youth Club from this fault.
33. I asked the Council to tell me how it had due regard to its PSED in its grant of HAF funding. It said that it expected all providers to meet the needs of children with protected characteristics, including religious and cultural needs. However, I do not consider this to be enough to show that the Council considered the needs of children and young people in its area with protected characteristics. This was fault. The PSED requires the Council to have regard to protected groups when designing and delivering services. In this case, this means the needs of children and young people with protected characteristics should have been part of the Council’s assessment of what provision it needed, and which provision to fund.
34. Going forward, we would expect the Council to show its consideration of the specific needs of children and young people with protected characteristics, including religious and ethnic minorities. Therefore, when the Council does its next funding round, it should consider exploring how many children in its area are Orthodox Jewish and whether there is provision available to meet their needs. If not, it should consider cross-boundary work with services outside the area which have existing links to the community, as recommended by the government guidance.
35. For her part, if Mrs X applies for future funding, she should consider providing information about the children in Manchester who use, or might use, the service and their specific needs not met by other provision.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Where we find fault, we can recommend actions for the Council to take to improve its services.
37. The draft of this decision recommended that within three months, the Council should tell us about its action to:
• Give reasons related to the decision making criteria when refusing applications for Holiday Activity and Food funding; and
• Ensure the needs of children and young people with protected characteristics are part of the Council’s assessment of what Holiday Activity and Food provision it needs, as well as which provision to fund.
38. The Council has already implemented the recommendations:
• Its application information now tells applicants any refusal will include an explanation relating to the assessment criteria;
• The Council has committed to a scoping exercise to identify children and young people in its area with protected characteristics, which it will take into account during the assessment process; and
• Its application information now encourages applications from under-represented groups and those with protected characteristics.
39. We welcome the Council’s swift implementation of our recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. This did not cause Mrs X injustice. The Council has already acted on my recommendations to improve its services in future.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman