Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his application for free early years childcare. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X at the current time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his application for free early years childcare.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to the Council for free early years childcare for his child. The Council refused his application on the basis its electronic checking system showed the family as “not eligible”. The Council’s system uses data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to establish eligibility.
6. Mr X sent the Council a copy of his latest tax credits award letter, but the Council said this was not enough to show eligibility. It suggested he contact HMRC. The Council explained other families had been able to show their eligibility by doing this. Alternatively, Mr X could appeal to the Council’s Early Years Panel. Mr X did this, but the panel refused his appeal. The Council says this was because there was no evidence to support his application, and he had not contacted HMRC.
7. Mr X says the Council has requested three months of payslips, but he has refused to provide these “out of principle”. The Council says it will reconsider Mr X’s application if he provides up to date information about the family’s earnings, and if it receives confirmation of this from HMRC.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we need to consider what we can achieve for the person complaining. We also need to consider what other options are available for the person complaining. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive.
9. I understand Mr X is frustrated his application for early years childcare has been refused. But the Council has a duty to make sure it only provides funding for eligible parents. If its eligibility checking service cannot confirm entitlement, it is reliant on applicants providing proof of entitlement. Mr X has the option of contacting HMRC and sending the Council further proof.
10. If Mr X was then still unhappy with the Council’s decision, he could make a further complaint to the Ombudsman. But, at the current time, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. It is difficult to see what more we could achieve for Mr X. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X at the current time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman