Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about benefits. As Mr X has appealed to tribunals, we cannot consider how much housing benefit and council tax reduction he should receive. It is more appropriate for the courts to decide whether Mr X should receive compensation. Other points seem peripheral without good enough reason for us to investigate them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of housing benefit (HB), council tax reduction (CTR) and discretionary housing payment (DHP) matters. He says this has affected his finances, health and ability to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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.
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X first complained to us in February 2024. We said the Council should finish dealing with the complaint first. Since then, some matters have moved on.
10. To explain my decision, I need not go into all the details of the events complained of. I shall begin by focussing on the main points Mr X said he wanted to achieve by complaining to us.
11. Mr X believes the Council was wrong to stop his HB and to refuse a later claim. He wants the Council to pay HB at the level and for the backdated time periods he believes he is entitled. He has appealed and the Council has passed his appeal to the first-tier tribunal, which can decide the level and period of someone’s HB eligibility. So, for the reasons in paragraph 3, we have no power to consider this point.
12. Mr X also wants the Council to give him council tax reduction (CTR) for the period and level he believes he is entitled. He has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, which will decide his eligibility. So the restriction in paragraph 3 also prevents us considering this matter.
13. Some points Mr X raised with us relate closely to the matters the tribunals will decide. These include the Council’s requests for information from Mr X before it cancelled his HB and CTR and how the Council reconsidered the cancellation. Those points closely concern whether the Council’s decisions were correct, which the tribunals will decide. So we cannot properly look into such matters.
14. Mr X wants the Council to give a DHP concerning rent and council tax not covered by HB and CTR. The Council says it cannot consider doing that until Mr X’s entitlement to HB and CTR is clear. Once the tribunals have decided that, the Council will know about any shortfall and can make an informed decision about any DHP award. I see no fault in that position, in the circumstances.
15. Mr X wants compensation for the alleged impact on his health and the claimed resulting impact on his business. He mentioned sums of £185,000 to £200,000. The courts can decide such points, so the restriction in paragraph 6 applies.
16. The alleged effect on Mr X’s health is a claim of personal injury. The existence of, liability for, and compensation for, personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more suitable for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide those points. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he wants a decision on this point.
17. The alleged consequential effect on Mr X’s business and earnings is an allegation of consequential economic loss. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. Those are more properly for the courts.
18. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead, especially given the significant sums Mr X is seemingly considering seeking.
19. For these reasons, we shall not investigate whether the Council should pay Mr X compensation on these points.
20. Mr X also complains about some of how the Council dealt with matters, including: the Council claiming it, not Mr X, began the review of his HB and CTR; whether the Council’s welfare rights department properly understood what Mr X was seeking when it declined to help him; and the Council’s handling of telephone contact. I appreciate Mr X is concerned about those points, which might have caused frustration. However, they seem peripheral to the main questions of what Mr X should be receiving in terms of help with housing costs and council tax. Therefore it would be a disproportionate use of resources to investigate those points when we cannot investigate the central points.
21. The Council appears to have taken longer than we would expect to pass Mr X’s HB appeal to the tribunal. We normally expect councils to consider such requests and, if not persuaded to change the decision, to pass the appeal to the tribunal within a month of receiving the appeal request. Here, the Council received Mr X’s request for a tribunal appeal in early March 2024. It took until mid-May to tell Mr X it was sending the appeal to the tribunal and did not send it until 18 June. If we were to investigate this point, we might find fault with the timescale. However, as the Council has now sent the appeal, we can achieve nothing practical for Mr X in that sense. Any injustice to Mr X just from any delay sending the appeal, such as some avoidable uncertainty and frustration, would not in itself be significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this point. Nor would investigating this resolve Mr X’s main concern about how much HB he should receive. So we shall not investigate this point.
22. I appreciate Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council and finds his situation difficult. However, for the reasons given above, we shall not investigate the complaint. This does not imply we have taken any view about whether Mr X should receive HB, CTR, DHP and compensation. Rather, those are not matters for us to decide and we would not be justified in pursuing the remaining matters.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has used his tribunal appeal rights so we cannot consider the HB and CTR decisions. It is more appropriate for the courts to decide whether Mr X should receive compensation. Other points seem peripheral without good enough reason for us to investigate them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman