5. Miss E complains the IA failed to properly explore why her childcare provider would not give details to allow a reimbursement of the cost of childcare she paid for. She complains the IA failed to provide any other solutions once this became clear.
6. She says this has left her unable to get the reimbursement she is entitled to, causing her financial hardship as well as worry and distress.
7. She would like compensation and for the SLC to reimburse the childcare fees directly to her.
8. Miss E sent her student finance application on 18 May 2020 to start her studies on 14 September.
9. She did not apply for a childcare grant and, at that time, the SLC decided she was not eligible for it because she had said she would get childcare assistance elsewhere.
10. On 25 June, she submitted further evidence about her daughter and the SLC responded saying she may be eligible for a childcare grant, but would need to apply.
11. Miss E applied for a childcare grant but the SLC found her ineligible for funding.
12. Miss E contacted the SLC the next year with a query about a childcare grant and the SLC awarded this to her. She then provided information of her childcare costs for the previous academic year, with the intention of being reimbursed.
13. The SLC advised Miss E that she was eligible for reimbursement but it had to come from the childcare provider because this was its policy. To do this, the childcare provider would need to get in touch to give their details so the SLC could do checks. Miss E says the childcare provider is unwilling to do this because they have already provided the service.
14. After this, Miss E submitted a formal complaint due to the financial hardship this had caused and because the SLC would not reimburse her directly.
15. The SLC did not uphold her complaints and directed her to the IA if she remained unhappy.
16. The IA did not uphold her concerns that the wording in the application was misleading or that the SLC did not reimburse her directly. It found failings in how the SLC handled her childcare grant application and in escalating her complaint to the IA, but considered it had taken appropriate action to put this right.
19. In cases where a second-tier complaint handler, such as the IA, has already considered the complaint, our general approach is to first consider whether they carried out a fair and thorough investigation. This is to avoid repeating work that has already been done.
20. Miss E complains the IA failed to properly explore why her childcare provider would not give their details and that it failed to provide any other solutions.
21. The Terms of Reference explain the IA’s role in relation to the SLC. The IA’s role is to independently investigate when a complainant remains unhappy with the SLC’s handling of their complaint. The purpose of the IA as set out in the Terms of Reference is to: • review appeals and complaints from higher education and further education student finance customers • provide the customer with an impartial view of their case • either make recommendations or confirm there are no recommendations where appropriate.
22. It has no scope or remit to look beyond the SLC or at other organisations or service providers that may be indirectly involved in a complaint. Its only responsibilities are to review the SLC’s handling of the complaints, reach an impartial decision and decide whether or not recommendations should be made.
23. Our Principles say that organisations should act according to their statutory powers and duties and follow their own procedural guidance. They add that organisations should give clear, evidence-based explanations and reasons for their decisions.
24. The childcare contract was made between Miss E and the childcare provider. The SLC and IA were not involved and have no authority to investigate it. In line with this, the Terms of Reference and our Principles, we do not think the IA failed to take action.
25. Regarding the fact the IA did not offer any other options for reimbursement, we do not think the IA failed to suggest anything because, based on what we have seen, there appear to be no other options. For payment of a childcare grant, the childcare provider needs to log into the payment system (something that is set up by another external organisation) and claim the childcare amount. The student then needs to authorise the amounts claimed to make sure they are accurate. Then the SLC pays the money directly to the provider.
26. This will be disappointing for Miss E and we appreciate the financial burden not having this money has had on her. Reimbursement is still available if the childcare provider changes their mind and follows the process.
1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Miss E’s complaint about the Student Loans Company (the SLC) and how the Independent Assessor (the IA) investigated it. The IA’s role is to independently investigate complaints that the SLC has not been able to resolve.
2. Having reviewed all of the available relevant records, we believe the IA correctly considered Miss E’s concerns within the boundaries of its remit. The IA’s responsibility is to independently assess the SLC’s actions. As the childcare contract in question was made between Miss E and the childcare provider, the SLC was not involved and this means it is not in the IA’s remit to explore further.
3. Regarding the reimbursement situation, we have decided the IA acted appropriately. For payment of a childcare grant, the childcare provider needs to log into the payment system themselves and claim the childcare amount, before the student confirms the amounts claimed. At that stage, the SLC will pay the money. The SLC can only pay the money directly to a registered childcare provider and unfortunately there is no other avenue available for reimbursement.
4. We understand this has been a frustrating and distressing experience for Miss E. We know the events she has complained about continue to affect her emotionally and financially, and to learn that there is no other route for reimbursement will be disappointing. Our decision is in no way a reflection on the difficult situation she has found herself in. This statement explains our decision in more detail.