Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a remedy payment from the Council impacting Miss X’s apparent financial circumstances in the following tax year. We could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks, and it is open to her to pursue the matter via the courts, if necessary, or alternatively with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed paying a financial remedy in line with a previous decision by the Ombudsman. She said this affected her financial situation for the 2023-24 tax year, as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to accept the payment was earnings from the 2022-23 tax year.
2. Miss X said she has lost out on thousands of pounds, as records suggest she earned more than she really did in the 2023-24 financial year. She said she has also lost out on benefits and support for her children she otherwise would have been entitled to. She said she had to take out a loan with significant interest to cover her responsibilities.
3. Miss X wanted the Council to pay her compensation of £17,887 for the knock-on impacts of the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We made a decision in April 2023, that the Council should backdate direct payments for care for Miss X’s mother to 2022. Miss X acted as her mother’s carer from March 2022.
9. The Council subsequently paid backdated direct payments to Miss X’s mother in line with our decision, and we closed the case as we were satisfied the Council had taken the agreed action.
10. Miss X then received payment from her mother for the care she provided in the 2022-23 tax year. She says HMRC refused to include the payment as earnings for the 2022-23 tax year, instead including it within her earnings for the 2023-24 tax year and significantly inflating her apparent income for that subsequent year.
11. Miss X says the knock-on impacts of the Council’s original fault addressed in our previous decision have resulted in her being £17,887 out of pocket. She therefore seeks compensation from the Council of this amount, as she is of the view it could have made the payment promptly in March 2023 when it suggested the remedy payment.
12. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to provide significant compensation or assess economic losses, and when compensation is a person’s primary goal we normally direct them to the courts. We could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks in this case, and it is open to her to refer the matter to the courts should she wish to pursue compensation from the Council.
13. However, Miss X may alternatively be able to resolve the matter with HMRC as the body that decided she could not include the payment in the tax year it related to. It remains open to Miss X to discuss the matter further with HMRC, possibly employing an accountant to aid with this. Ultimately, it is open to Miss X to appeal HMRC’s decision to a tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks, and the courts are best placed to consider claims for compensation. It is alternatively open to Miss X to pursue HMRC as the body that decided she could not include the payment in the tax year it related to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman