Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its decision to refuse a discretionary test and trace support payment because the complainant’s average earnings were too high. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss J.
2. Miss J complains the Council refused her application for a discretionary test and trace support payment, when she was required to isolate because she had contracted COVID-19. She says the Council calculated her average weekly earnings by only taking into account the weeks when she was working, and if it had averaged her earnings across the full year, she would have met the criteria for payment. Miss J says the Council’s decision caused her financial hardship.

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. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Miss J’s correspondence with the Council.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss J worked for an agency in an educational role. In February 2022, she applied to the Council for a discretionary test and trace support payment, as she had been told to isolate by the NHS because she had contracted COVID-19. The Council refused her application because her average weekly earnings were above the threshold set out in its policy.
8. Miss J complained to the Council about this decision in August, but the Council maintained its position. In its stage 2 response of 15 August, the Council told Miss J she now had 12 months to approach the Ombudsman with her complaint if she wished to pursue it.
9. Miss J complained to the Ombudsman on 9 July 2023.

Back to top

Legislative background

Test and trace support schemes

10. The Government introduced a national test and trace support scheme in September 2020. Under this scheme, people could receive a £500 grant to cover lost earnings if they:

• had been told to isolate by the NHS Test and Trace service, because they had contracted or been exposed to someone with COVID-19;
• were employed but could not work from home; and
• were in receipt of certain benefits.

11. The Government also gave local authorities the power to introduce their own discretionary scheme. This was to provide grants to people who did not receive qualifying benefits, and therefore were not eligible for the national scheme, but who had a low income and would suffer financial hardship because of the requirement to isolate.
12. These schemes closed to applicants in February 2022.

Council’s discretionary scheme

13. The Council’s discretionary scheme included the following definition of a low income:

• A couple with a joint income of less than £384.62 per week
• A single parent with an income of less than £384.62 per week
• A single adult with an income of less than £257.69 per week
• The applicant or their partner holds capital and savings of less than £6000

Back to top

Analysis

14. The law says a person should approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. This is called the ‘permitted period’.
15. In Miss J’s case, she became of the issue she complains about – the Council’s refusal of her application – in February 2022. This meant she had until February 2023 to approach us. But she did not do so until July 2023, meaning her complaint falls outside the permitted period and is late.
16. However, the law allows us to disapply this rule where we consider it appropriate. In order to do so, we must be satisfied there is a good reason for the delay in the complaint, and also that it remains possible to carry out a meaningful and robust investigation.
17. Miss J has pointed out the Council’s stage 2 complaint response told her she had 12 months from that date – which was 15 August 2022 – to approach the Ombudsman. This is incorrect, which we have told the Council. As Miss J was misinformed though, I accept she had a good reason for her delay in complaining to us. I am also satisfied we can still properly investigate her complaint, and so I have decided to accept her complaint for investigation despite it being late.
18. As she works in educational settings, Miss J only receives earnings during the 39-week school year.
19. When she applied for a test and trace support payment, the Council calculated her average earnings over a period of 39 weeks. This came to an average of £271.56 per week, which was above the ‘single adult’ threshold in the Council’s policy. For this reason, the Council refused Miss J’s application.
20. Miss J says, if the Council had averaged her wages over the full 52-week calendar year, then the average would have been below the threshold. This is clearly true.
21. However, I am not persuaded it would be logical or normal to include periods of unemployment – which, for Miss J, the school holidays effectively are – when calculating a person’s average weekly earnings. There is also nothing in the Government guidance on test and trace support schemes to suggest this is the approach authorities should take.
22. This being so, I am satisfied the Council was entitled to restrict its calculations to the periods when Miss J was actually working. There is no evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman