Complaint about the Learning and Skills Council for England
Jump to
Misleading and inaccurate information about education maintenance allowance led to financial loss
Background to the complaint
K was due to start a college course on 11 September 2006. In early August her mother, Mrs Q, obtained the necessary forms and guidance notes in order for K to apply for education maintenance allowance (a weekly payment of up to £30 to support people from low income households to continue in learning, administered by the Learning and Skills Council for England – the Council). Mrs Q understood that K needed to open a bank account; realising that that might take time to arrange (K was waiting for a new passport to replace her expired one, and she had no utility or council tax bills in her name), she rang the Council’s education maintenance allowance helpline to explain the difficulty and to ask for advice. Mrs Q told us that the helpline said that they could not accept K’s application without a valid bank account.
In early September 2006 K and Mrs Q visited several banks and building societies, to enquire about opening a bank account, but each time the lack of proof of identity for K was a problem. Mrs Q rang the helpline several times to explain the problem and was, she said, repeatedly told to persevere. By late September K had started at college and Mrs Q was supporting her financially. According to Mrs Q, she spoke to the helpline on 1 October and was advised to submit the education maintenance allowance application straight away. She was told that although the form would be returned because there were no bank account details, K’s application would be registered and backdated on receipt of the bank details. Mrs Q submitted the application form on 2 October, together with a letter describing the difficulties she had faced and the previous day’s advice.
K received her new passport and eventually opened a bank account. The Council received the details on 18 October 2006 and backdated her education maintenance allowance to 2 October (where an application is received more than four weeks after the start of the course, payments may be backdated to the date on which the application was received or the start date of the course, whichever is later). When Mrs Q asked the Council about backdating the education maintenance allowance to September, they advised her to appeal. She did so, describing the difficulties she had encountered, and the helpline’s contradictory advice. Her appeal was unsuccessful.
Mrs Q approached her MP who wrote to the Minister in January 2007, pointing out that if Mrs Q had submitted the education maintenance allowance application in September without the bank account details, the award would have been backdated to September. But, instead, she had lost money. The MP said that if the Council were prepared to backdate the allowance to the date the form was received, regardless of whether it was complete, applicants should be informed of that from the beginning. If claimants were not informed, then the policy ought to be amended. The Council’s Chief Executive replied to the MP, saying that K’s payments could not be backdated because there was no evidence to suggest that she intended to apply before 2 October 2006. He did not address the MP’s central point.
In February 2007 Mrs Q complained to the Council about the inaccurate information the helpline had given her, and about the refusal to backdate the education maintenance allowance. In the meantime, the college contacted the Council to say that Mrs Q had asked them for documentation to support her claim that the initial application had been made in September 2006. They said a member of the college staff had spoken to Mrs Q many times dating back to the start of the course, and would be happy to talk to the Council. The Council replied that they would contact the individual if they thought it necessary. In the event, they did not. The Council did not uphold Mrs Q’s complaint. They said that as K’s application had been received more than four weeks after starting her course, she was only eligible to receive payments from the date of receipt.
What we investigated
Mrs Q complained to the Ombudsman in May 2007, commenting that ‘In every other aspect of claims for people on low income, emphasis is made on getting in the forms even if you do not have all the information to ensure payments are not lost, but this is not the policy with EMA. I would like to see this changed’.
We investigated Mrs Q’s complaints about being given misleading information concerning when to apply for education maintenance allowance, and about backdating it, which had led to financial loss and inconvenience. (K received no education maintenance allowance for September 2006 and Mrs Q incurred unnecessary out-of-pocket expenses.)
What our investigation found
We established that incomplete education maintenance allowance applications are not rejected, but are acknowledged and given a case reference number. However, the helpline, website and the guidance notes led Mrs Q to believe that K’s application would be rejected if submitted without bank account details. She was given inadequate and misleading information, which was maladministrative. The Council’s reply to the MP indicated a degree of discretion not provided for in the education maintenance allowance scheme. But, in any event, they made no attempt to examine the evidence offered by the college of K’s earlier intent to apply for education maintenance allowance, and so did not give due weight to all relevant factors when considering Mrs Q’s complaint. The Council also failed to address the central point of the MP’s letter. The Council’s maladministration meant that K received no education maintenance allowance during September 2006, which Mrs Q had no choice but to make good, while she had to make a number of telephone calls and write letters unnecessarily.
We concluded our investigation in March 2008 and upheld Mrs Q’s complaint.
Outcome
At our recommendation, the Council:
- apologised to Mrs Q;
- paid her £100 to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused; and
- paid £120 to K (as the education maintenance allowance applicant) which was equal to the amount she would have received in September 2006.
We recommended that the Council review the backdating rules to ensure they met the scheme’s policy objectives and were flexible enough to permit them to deal with exceptional and unanticipated circumstances fairly and appropriately. The Council said they were satisfied with the flexibility of the scheme rules, but agreed to put in place procedures to create a record of an application that would allow the backdating of payments in appropriate cases.
We recommended that the Council ensure that the education maintenance allowance website, guidance notes and helpline staff explained clearly to applicants that, if they encounter a delay in opening the necessary bank account, they should submit their application form in order to safeguard their entitlement. The Council said that the helpline ‘scripts’ now include that information.
Principles of Good Administration
The Principles of Good Administration were not referred to in our report but this case summary serves to illustrate the following Principles:
- ‘Getting it right’ (acting in accordance with published or internal policy and guidance).
- ‘Being open and accountable’ (being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring that information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete).
- ‘Putting things right’ (acknowledging mistakes, apologising, and putting mistakes right quickly and effectively).
- ‘Seeking continuous improvement’ (reviewing policies and procedures).
