The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused two COVID-19 Test and Trace payments. Since the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed the applications and made the payments. We have therefore ended this investigation on the basis there is now no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council had wrongly refused two COVID-19 test and trace payments. This meant he was not compensated for two periods when he was not able to work.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I considered the information the Council provided in response to our notification that we proposed to investigate the complaint.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered the comments I received before making my final decision.
Background
COVID-19 Test and Trace Support Payments In September 2020, the Government introduced NHS Test and Trace Support Payments. A payment of £500 could be made to individuals on a low income who: who were employed or self employed; they, or a child they are the parent or guardian of, tested positive for COVID-19, or were told they or their child was a close contact by NHS Test and Trace; could not work from home and would lose income by self-isolating or staying at home to care for their child; and were not exempt from self-isolating.
COVID-19 Additional Restrictions business grants In November 2020, In November 2020 the Government introduced the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) to support businesses impacted by COVID-19 restrictions.
The Government published guidance to support councils in administering these grants. This encouraged councils to support businesses from all sectors that may have been severely impacted by restrictions but were not eligible for other grants schemes, for example, because the business did not pay business rates.
What happened Mr X is a taxi driver. He applied for a test and trace payment in mid July 2021 when he had to stay at home to care for his son, who had been asked to self isolate. The Council refused the payment in early August 2021. It said this was because there was another parent in the property that it considered could look after the child.
Mr X argued that his wife was not able to do as she was unwell. The Council sought advice from the Department of Health and Social Care that confirmed the Council could consider making a payment in these circumstances. On the basis of this advice, the Council reviewed its decision and made the payment.
In mid August 2021, Mr X applied for a second test and trace payment. This was refused in early September 2021 because he had already received an ARG grant and had therefore not demonstrated he had lost income as a result of self isolating. On 14 October 2021 the Guidance issued to councils about the process for self-employed applicants changed. In light of this the Council reviewed this decision and made the payment.
My findings
To qualify for the grant, Mr X had to meet all the Government criteria. This included considering whether he needed to care for the child who was self isolating and considering whether he had lost income as a result of self isolating.
In relation to the first application, after he asked for a review, the Council sought further advice, following which it reviewed its decision. This was appropriate action to take.
In relation to the second application, the Council initially refused the payment after taking into account the ARG grant it had paid him, which it said meant he had not lost income as a result of self isolating. It later reviewed its position based on updated guidance about how to treat self employed applicants that it received after making the original decision.
It appeared initially that the Council had only reviewed the decisions after Mr X complained to us. However, after making preliminary enquiries, it appears the timing was coincidental.
Although Mr X has now received both payments, he still wished to pursue the complaint. I have therefore considered whether it is proportionate for us to investigate further and whether we could achieve any worthwhile outcome by doing so. At this stage, I propose to end our investigation. This is because: The Council has now paid both the grants Mr X applied for. This means it has provided a full remedy for the injustice Mr X complained about and it is unlikely I could achieve anything worthwhile for Mr X; It is unlikely that there will be many other applications for a test and trace payment where the applicant has already received a COVID-19 discretionary business grant that means it is arguable they have not lost income as a result of self isolating. Nor are there likely to be many that turned on whether another parent in the property was able to care for a self isolating child instead. Therefore, it is not proportionate for me to investigate in order to consider whether others have been affected by the same issue or whether to recommend the Council reviews its processes; and The Council told me it has already shared the learning from the first application with relevant staff and has agreed to share the learning from the second application. This will reduce the risk of the same issues arising in future.
Final decision
I have ended my investigation. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action to address the complaint and to reduce the risk the same issue will arise in future.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman