Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council decided and implemented its household support fund. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council decided and implemented its household support fund. Miss X does not feel the Council properly considered all vulnerable groups, such as people under 65 who do not have children, and people with disabilities. Miss X questioned whether the Council followed Government guidance and carried out equality impact assessments.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
5. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council 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

Equality Act

7. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
8. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
9. The protected characteristics referred to in the Act are:
• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Marriage and civil partnership
• Pregnancy and maternity
• Race
• Religion or belief
• Sex
• Sexual orientation
10. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Public sector equality duty

11. The broad purpose of the public sector equality duty is to consider equality and good relations in the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected in the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Household Support Fund guidance

12. The Household Support Fund (HSF) is a government scheme to provide financial support to those households most in need. The scheme ran from October 2021 to March 2022. It was then extended to September 2022. Councils manage the scheme in their areas.
13. The government published guidance for councils on delivering the scheme in November 2021. This was updated in April 2022. For this complaint, the relevant version of the guidance is the one in place in April 2022. All references to the guidance in this decision are to the April 2022 version.
14. At least one third of the funding was for vulnerable households with children. And at least one third of the funding was for pensioners. The remaining funding was for other vulnerable households (without children or pensioners including individuals) or for additional spend on the named groups.
15. Councils had discretion on exactly how the funding was used, “based on their understanding of local need and with due regard to equality considerations.”
16. The guidance says councils should use the data and information available to identify and support a “broad cross section of vulnerable households in their area”. The guidance says councils may find the details about people claiming welfare benefits available from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) “useful in identifying those most in need.”
17. However, the guidance stressed that “support is not restricted to vulnerable households in receipt of benefits” and councils “should also use other sources of information to identify vulnerable households”.
18. The guidance said councils “should particularly consider how they can support low income households that cannot increase their income through work, such as pensioners, people with disabilities, unpaid carers and parents of very young children in their area”.
19. The guidance says councils should have a “strong rationale” for its decision about who is eligible and how they will access the scheme. Councils should keep this under review to make sure funding is available to the people who need it most.
20. The guidance tells councils to consider how support provided through the scheme “impacts those with characteristics protected under the Equality Act.” It directs councils to “ensure people are not disadvantaged or treated unfairly by this scheme.”

The Council’s household support fund scheme

21. The Council decided to deliver funding to the following groups:
• Families with children receiving free school meals.
• Families with children not receiving free school meals but receiving housing benefit/and or council tax discount.
• Pensioner households where householders received either housing benefit, council tax discount, or pension credit.
22. The Council targeted its scheme, so eligible households did not need to apply.
23. Households with children receiving free school meals received their HSF payment from their child’s school.
24. The Council wrote to households who were eligible through receipt of housing benefits, council tax discount, or pension credit. They could collect their payment at a Post Office.
25. The Council produced a report, titled ‘Council Tax Energy Grants, Household Support and Covid Additional relief Fund schemes updates’ in May 2022. The Council presented the report to its Cabinet for approval in June 2022.
26. The report provides detail on the Council’s reasoning and consideration of how to use the HSF:
27. “To comply with the terms of the scheme but to also maintain consistency of award for children, the proposal is to provide children with £15 per week for 7 weeks being the May / June half-term and the 6 week summer holiday. For elderly residents, there are currently 7,250 households receiving housing and or council tax benefit and therefore propose to use the mandatory 33% providing support to these residents i.e. £2.66m / 33% and apportioned across the 7,250 households, a payment of £120 per household”.
28. “The Council will explore potential eligibility for other Adult Social Care service users receiving care packages in Lewisham and also those who receive pension credit. This data matched against our current housing and council tax benefit caseload and identified a further 813 residents with care packages and 769 receiving pension credit. This process identified a further 1,582 households to provide support to. Given the support will come from the finite amount of funding available through the Household Fund, this will result in a reduction overall from £120 per household to £100 but the lower amount will be paid to 1,582 more households”.
29. “Our recommendation is to award 33% of the funding to elderly households i.e. £870k – so to comply with the terms of the scheme – but the Council is also looking to award £15 per week of school holidays (7 weeks) per child. By doing so, the proposed allocation will exceed the amount available to award families with children. The proposal is to pay a total of £2.189m to families and £883,200 to elderly households which exceeds the total funding available by £412k”.
30. “However, there is a shortfall in providing support for children as detailed in 7.1 above (£412k) and to make this provision, it is proposed to use the discretionary element of the Energy Grant scheme to fund this support”.
31. On equality, the report states:
32. “The proposals set out in this report contribute to the Council’s Single Equality Framework objective: ‘to reduce the number of vulnerable people in the borough by tackling socio-economic inequality’. According to data from the Department for Energy and Climate Change, nearly 2 in 10 Lewisham households are fuel poor. The impact of fuel poverty in Lewisham, a low income economy compared to London, is likely to be further exacerbated by the ongoing cost of living crisis”.
33. “In terms of characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010, the proposals set out in this paper will have a positive impact on all protected groups, but in particular older person households (Lewisham ranks 18th out of 317 local authorities in England for income deprivation affecting older people) and those with dependent children (Lewisham ranks 39th out of 317 local authorities in England for income deprivation affecting children)”.
34. “Mitigation of socio-economic inequality is one of the specific aims of the ‘Fairer Lewisham Duty’, which is being used to help the Council to better assess and understand the likely socio-economic effects of its decisions on households and in particular, those facing the greatest vulnerability. The application of this lens suggests that the proposals set out in this report, will contribute to positive outcomes for recipients and help to reduce the likelihood of disproportionate effects on the most disadvantaged”.

Complaint to the Council

35. Miss X complained on 5 August 2022 about the Council’s administration of the household support fund April 2022. She said the Council excluded adults of working age who receive disability benefits if they do not have children or dependents. She also said the Council had not given due regard to the government guidance and failed to carry out its duties under equalities legislation.
36. The Council sent it stage one complaint response on 15 August 2022. It said:
• It had to award at least 33% of funding to families with children and at least 33% to elderly residents.
• The funding received is not enough to make a significant difference. It tried to spread the funding across groups it feels are most in need. It cannot help everyone.
• It does not have to comply with Government guidance. It had to award payments according to specific criteria, which it did.
• It cannot define ‘low income’ as this is subjective. Awarding payments to everyone in financial difficulty would significantly reduce the amount awarded to families with children and elderly households.
• It made decisions with Councilors and using internal intelligence about vulnerability. As there is no definition, the Council defined this as households receiving housing and or council tax benefit.
• It met its public sector equality duty. It complied with the compulsory elements of the scheme and carefully considered the most vulnerable households.
37. Miss X remained dissatisfied and made a stage two complaint. She said the Council did not follow the statutory processes for delivering funds and failed to show it undertook any equality impact assessment or fulfilled its public sector equality duty. She also said the Council had not provided any evidence to support the approach it took, or of the internal intelligence it considered. She said disabled households with no children do not receive any support.
38. The Council sent its final response on 6 October 2022. It said:
• The law requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity. The Council said it showed due regard.
• It considered the impact on elderly residents and from the data on elderly residents it considered sex, ethnicity, and the number who are disabled.
• It had discretion on how it targeted some of the funding, using its local knowledge and available data.
• It determined ‘vulnerability’ to be households receiving other benefits, such as free school meals, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Findings

39. The Council had to give at least 33% of funding to support elderly households and at least 33% to support households with children. The Council assigned 33% of funding to elderly households and chose to give more than 33% of funding to households with children. The Council was permitted to do this under Government guidance. That was not fault.
40. The Council had discretion about how it targeted the funding for the compulsory categories, and about how it used the remaining funding.
41. However, the Council had to target and assign the funding by considering different sources of information and by providing a clear rationale for its decision. It also had to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
42. The Council used the local knowledge of its officers, which it was entitled to do. It also considered data it held about housing benefits, council tax support, pension credit, and its social care records. I therefore found the Council did consider different sources of information and was not at fault.
43. The Council has provided a rationale for its decision-making, so I do not consider it acted with fault. The Council considered vulnerable households to be those receiving housing or council tax benefits. In forming this view, the Council was conscious of wanting to prevent households who were already disadvantaged from being disproportionately affected by the increased cost of living.
44. The evidence seen shows the Council did have due regard for its duties under the Equality Act. I have not seen evidence the Council failed to consider its duties. It is the Council’s view its scheme positively impacts all protected groups. Miss X considers disabled adults of working age or who do not have children will be disadvantaged. That is not something I can decide on the available evidence.
45. While Government guidance required the Council to have due regard to its equalities duties, it also gave the Council discretion to target the funding to those it considered most in need. That is a balancing act for the Council. There was not enough funding to help everyone.
46. The guidance also allowed councils to use more than 33% of the funding to support either households with children or elderly households if they wished. The Council was therefore not at fault for deciding to provide more funding to the specified groups.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman