North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 129)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax support

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 03 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council made errors with her housing benefit and council tax support claim but failed to look at it again. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs B to pursue her right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council made errors with her housing benefit and council tax support claim but failed to look at it again. She says the Council’s errors have led to her having rent and council tax arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  4. The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
  5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the information Mrs B provided and copies of correspondence the Council has provided. I have given Mrs B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mrs B’s current complaint to us is about the Council’s decision to end her benefit entitlement for a period in 2011/12 because it said it had overpaid housing benefit to her. She says she found out later on the Council had made errors with her claim and it calculated the household income wrongly. Mrs B told us she asked the Council to look at its decisions again but it refused to do so in April or May 2013. Mrs B says in January 2020 the Council confirmed the amount it had applied for her weekly wage in its calculation, but this figure is incorrect. She says it is clear from her tax credit award for the relevant period that she should have been entitled to housing benefit.
  2. Mrs B has complained to us previously in 2012 and 2013 about the Council’s housing benefit decisions. We did not investigate those complaints because we considered it was reasonable for Mrs B to have used her right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. We would not investigate matters we have previously considered and decided. Mrs B has not complained to us in time about issues she did not raise in her earlier complaints.
  3. I have decided not to exercise discretion to investigate Mrs B’s current complaint. That is because the law provides a specific mechanism for people to use if they disagree with decisions a council has made on their housing benefit and council tax entitlement. It was not unreasonable to expect Mrs B to check the information the Council sent with its decisions and, if she thought the Council had made a mistake, to pursue her right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (for housing benefit) and the Valuation Tribunal (for council tax support) within the time period given. It was possible for her to do this when the Council did not change its decision after she asked for a review or instead of asking the Council to reconsider its decision. A complaint to the Ombudsman is not a substitute for the right of appeal the law provides.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs B to pursue her right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and the Valuation Tribunal.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings