Summary: Mr X complains about the quality of service he received from the Council when it represented him at a lower tribunal hearing for Personal Independence Payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We cannot consider matters relating to tribunal decisions. And any injustice he may have suffered is remedied by his case being reheard by the Lower Tribunal and its new decision to award him higher payments.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to represent him properly at Lower Tribunal hearing about his Personal Independence Payment awards.
2. He says the stress this caused led him to suffer another heart attack. He wants the Council to compensate him for its failure, apologise and improve its understanding of the impact that complex medical issues can have on individuals

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A (6) and 34B (8), as amended)
6. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council; and
• Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Councils’ responses to his complaint. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X received disability living allowance payments for mid-rate care and higher mobility. In 2017 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) moved him to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and withdrew all payments.
9. In December 2018 Mr X’s case was reconsidered and the DWP awarded his payment for standard mobility only.
10. Mr X decided to appeal. He wanted help with this and was referred to the Council’s advice service. The Council helped him with his appeal to the lower tribunal for PIP.
11. The lower tribunal hearing took place in October 2018. It decided not to make any changes to Mr X’s PIP. Mr X says the Council officer representing him did not speak for him or represent him adequately. He says this is why the Lower Tribunal decided not to change the PIP award.
12. Mr X has since appealed to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. This was upheld and his case was referred back to the Lower Tribunal for a rehearing.
13. The Lower Tribunal has reheard his case and made a new decision to award him higher PIP payments.

Assessment

14. I understand Mr X’s complaint to be the failure of the Council to adequately represent him at the Lower Tribunal hearing which was the direct cause of the Tribunal deciding not to change his PIP award. He also says the Council’s failure caused him stress which caused him to suffer another heart attack. He wants the Council to compensate him for its failure, apologise and improve its understanding of the impact that complex medical issues can have on individuals.
15. The Council says the case notes show the officers involved understood Mr X’s position. The officers felt he had a good chance of wining the Lower Tribunal hearing even though there was already receiving a payment. It says the case workers thought with his witness testimony, the Lower Tribunal might be convinced that he was entitled to a higher rate of benefit at the time the decision was made.
16. The Council also says the officer advised the Tribunal of the activities which Mr X may receive extra points for. But it stresses the officer’s view from the outset was that it would be Mr X’s witness testimony which would be the deciding factor in the appeal.
17. I will not investigate this complaint. Any injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s failure to provide information or follow a point of law at the Lower Tribunal hearing, is remedied by the decision of the Upper Tribunal to refer the case back for a rehearing. The Lower Tribunal has now awarded him higher payments.
18. I understand he feels the Council failed to represent him properly and because of the stress this caused, he suffered another heart attack. However, I cannot say definitively the alleged failures in the Council’s representation of him is directly and solely responsible for his further episode of ill health

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint. It is my view that any personal injustice Mr X may have suffered is remedied by the decision to refer his case back to the Lower Tribunal and its decision to award his higher payments. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman