Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it assessed her claim for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and Discretionary Housing Payment causing her distress. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and made a suitable payment to Ms X in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her claim for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). This led to Ms X’s landlord chasing her for arrears and verbally threatening her with an eviction notice. Ms X says the Council also wrongly issued a summons against her for non-payment of Council Tax when she had a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in place.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with her Council Tax account and DHP. The final part of this statement explains my reasons for not considering Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s recovery of a Housing Benefit overpayment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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). 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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X claimed Housing Benefit from the Council. In April 2018, she advised the Council about a change in her work contract resulting in an anomalous wage slip for April 2018. The Council told Ms X to send in more information about her contract and wages and suspended her claim. Ms X provided copies of her payslips for 2018 and information from her employer about her April 2018 wages. The Council sought information from Ms X’s employer and then decided Ms X’s entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax support.
8. Ms X also claimed for a DHP in April 2018. The Council assessed the claim in June 2018 and told Ms X she was not entitled to an award. Ms X provided further information about her expenditure. The Council re-determined her claim and awarded her the payment.
9. Ms X had a DRO issued by the government’s Insolvency Service in January 2018. This applies a moratorium of 12 months on all qualifying debts named in a Schedule attached to the Order. So, the person does not need to pay towards the debts which are written off after a year. Ms X’s DRO named two debts owed to the Council. These were an overpayment of Housing Benefit of £225.13 and overpayment of Council Tax Benefit of £231.11.
10. The Council issued Ms X with a court summons for unpaid Council Tax in 2018.

Ms X’s complaints to the Council

11. Ms X complained to the Council about its actions in deciding her claim to Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and DHP causing her distress and financial difficulties. Ms X pursued her complaint at Stage one, two and three of the Council’s complaints procedure and held two meetings with officers to discuss her concerns. The Council’s response to stage two is a detailed investigation into the issues Ms X raised. These were:
• The Council failed to act correctly on the information she provided about the change in her work contract and the anomalous wage slip in April 2018. So, it wrongly assessed her entitlement to Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and DHP resulting in her landlord threating to evict her due to rent arrears.
• The Council wrongly credited her monthly Council Tax payments to an account it had closed due to the DRO. Ms X said she was unaware of the closure of her account and the Council failed to tell her of a new account it opened for her. Ms X said she received two reminders and a court summons as a result. Ms X said the Council wrongly issued the summons against her and gave her no evidence it had withdrawn it.
• She asked the Council to calculate her DHP for a six-month period from April 2018. But the Council chose to do so on a month by month basis. Ms X considered due to the anomalous wage slip for April 2018 the Council charged her an extra £28 a month Council Tax.
• The Council arranged a meeting to discuss her stage one complaint 41 days after she made her complaint. It then took 55 days to issue a formal response. Ms X said the stage one complaint did not sufficiently and adequately reflect the issues she originally raised.
• Ms X queried the overpayment recovery payment of £13.60 deducted from her weekly Housing Benefit award in April and May 2018 but received no response from the Council.
12. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaints. The Stage two response explains Ms X made the Council aware in April 2018 the payslip was unusually high due to a change in her contract. But failed to provide any supporting information from her employer to explain this. So, the Council assessed her entitlement to benefit and support using the information in the April 2018 wage slip. This reduced the Housing Benefit and Council Tax support she received from April 2018. The Council asked Ms X to provide a payslip for May 2018 to reassess her benefit entitlement from May onwards. An officer also emailed Ms X’s employer to get the information in August 2018 as the letter Ms X provided did not give enough information.
13. The Council accepted its actions caused a delay in the eventual amendment of her benefits entitlement. But did not consider it was solely responsible for the delay or for resolving the inaccuracies with her pay statements. And in such circumstances, there was an obligation on the claimant to clarify the basis of their current and projected earnings with the support of their employer if needed.
14. The Council said the benefit teams acted correctly to seek clarity from her employer over the April 2018 wage slip and then correctly backdated the revised housing benefit entitlement to April 2018. This cleared Ms X’s rent arrears.
15. The Council said its policy was to close a customer’s Council Tax account for the financial year if it received a DRO applied against that year’s liability. The Council created a new account for Ms X’s 2018/19 Council Tax liability. It received payments to Ms X’s old account intended for the 2018/19 liability due to Ms X quoting the old account number when paying.
16. The Council said it should have immediately transferred the payments to her new account. And clearly told her the account number had changed due to the DRO applied to her 2017/18 Council Tax account. The Council said this meant Ms X received two reminders and a court summons for unpaid Council Tax for 2017/118. The Council accepted this would have caused her distress. But said the instalments Ms X made for the monthly amounts of Council Tax due for 2018/19 were below the monthly amounts requested. So, the Council would have sent her a summons anyway based on those payments. Due to this the Council accepted it issued Ms X a summons with an incorrect liability value.
17. The Council also accepted it did not clearly tell Ms X of the precise value of the 2018/19 arrears. And these were eventually reduced after the Council received further clarity of her income from April 2018. And it re-determined Ms X’s claim for Council Tax support. The Council confirmed it cancelled the summons action after Ms X’s meeting with officers in August 2018. It also cancelled all the court costs. The Council said Ms X owed £435.84 for her Council Tax account 2018/19. The Council said it would continue to collect her liability in line with its policies and procedures.
18. The Council accepts that where a customer has a DRO it should tell them the old Council Tax account number has closed and a new account opened. The Council says because of the investigation into Ms X’s complaint it will put a procedure in place to issue a covering letter to residents in receipt of a DRO. This will advise their Council Tax account is now closed and no further payments should be made against the old account number. The Council will advise it has created a new account number for any future liabilities.
19. In commenting on the draft decision Ms X says that the Council was incorrect to say it would have issued a summons to her as she was underpaying her Council Tax. Ms X says she was paying the monthly amount requested by the Council. Ms X says the Council has not considered the distress this matter caused to her.
20. The Council accepts it delayed processing Ms X’s DHP due to workloads at the time. It says the DHP is an annual budget awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions from 1 April. Due to this there are many claims received in April each year. The Council aims to process each claim within a calendar month although there are no statutory time frames given. The Council accepts it did not deal with Ms X’s claim within the month and has apologised.
21. The Council considered it acted appropriately within its discretion to decide to assess Ms X’s entitlement to DHP monthly from April 2018. It explained DHP was not a statutory housing benefit entitlement and it must ensure it allocates the resource based on a customer’s individually determined need. It says in April 2018 there were uncertainties about Ms X’s projected monthly income needing to be resolved. So was satisfied it was appropriate to assess her benefit each month.
22. The Council accepted it did not respond to Ms X’s stage one complaint within the standard response time due to an officer’s annual leave. However, the officer did advise Ms X about the delay. The Council accepted the stage one response did not fully address all the concerns she raised. This was dealt with in the stage two response. The Council apologised for any inconvenience and distress its actions caused Ms X.
23. The stage two investigation found the weekly overpayment recovery of £13.60 related to the recovery of Housing Benefit overpayment notification Ms X received in January 2018. This was for the period 2 April to 6 May 2018. The officer said it was incorrectly deducted from her Housing Benefit entitlement and she needed a refund of £68.97. The officer said it should have been subject to the 2017/18 DRO and not deducted from her Housing Benefit entitlement. The officer said it would be refunded to her. The Council apologised for the error.
24. The Council considered Ms X should receive a financial remedy to compensate her for the avoidable delay and distress caused to her. It recommended a payment of £200 and this would be deducted from her outstanding Council Tax balance of £435.84.
25. Ms X remined unhappy with the response and the Council considered the complaint at stage three of its complaint procedure. The reviewing officer accepted the Council upheld Ms X’s complaint in several areas and agreed to increase the ex gratia payment to £250. This was still to be deducted from her outstanding Council Tax balance. The Council considered this a direct benefit to Ms X and would reduce her monthly outstanding Council Tax due for the rest of the financial year.

Council comments on the complaint

26. In responding to my enquiries about the complaint the Council confirmed the outstanding Housing Benefit overpayment of £225.13 had been reduced to £170.73 when it received the DRO. The deductions were refunded directly to Ms X’s landlord in February 2018. This meant the amount named in the Order was not subject to collection and the moratorium complied with.
27. The Council says Ms X’s Council Tax account with a liability of £231.11, named on the Order was closed from 31 March 2018 and the liability not collected. It says from 1 April 2018 the provisions of the Order were no longer valid so Ms X became liable to pay Council Tax again. The Council set up a new Council Tax account for 2018/19.
28. The Council says after a further review of Ms X’s case it considers the Housing Benefit overpayment was not incorrectly collected from her. But related to an overpayment created on 23 April 2018 for 2 February 2018 to 25 March 2018. This was after Ms X’s DRO was made so was not covered by the Order and so can be recovered from Ms X.
29. Ms X left her accommodation in November 2018. The Council says this reduced her Council Tax arrears leaving a credit of £41.96 on her account. With the ex gratia payment Ms X had £291.76 in credit. However, the Housing Benefit overpayment of £271.13 was being collected at £13.60 a week. So, the Council offset the Council Tax refund and ex gratia payment leaving Ms X with a balance of £19.63 to be refunded to her. This cleared any overpayments Ms X owed to the Council. The Council transferred the £19.63 to Ms X to settle the matter.

My assessment

30. The Council accepted it failed to create a new Council Tax account for Ms X for 2018/19 when she had the DRO granted. The Council also accepted it failed to credit the payments she made towards her new Council Tax account in a timely way. The Council accepted a lack of clarity about creating the new Council Tax account and telling Ms X about the new arrangements. I consider this was fault by the Council and it caused an injustice to Ms X as she was unclear about the arrangements made for her Council Tax account.
31. It also resulted in Ms X receiving a court summons for unpaid Council Tax for the account she thought was covered by the DRO. However, the Council has advised Ms X was underpaying her current monthly amount for her new Council Tax liability. Due to this the Council says it would have issued a summons for this anyway. So, I consider it was fault by the Council to issue a summons to Ms X with the wrong liability value. But I do not consider it has caused Ms X any significant injustice as the Council would have issued her with a summons for unpaying her current Council Tax liability.
32. I note that Ms X does not agree that she was underpaying Council Tax. But the Council has apologised, cancelled the summons and associated costs and paid Ms X a financial remedy for any distress caused. So, I do not consider any further investigation would achieve anything further for Ms X or lead to a different outcome for Ms X.
33. The Council accepted its stage one response to Ms X did not address all the issues she raised. I consider this was fault by the Council and caused an injustice to Ms X as she had to continue to pursue her complaint.
34. The Council accepted it delayed in dealing with Ms X’s DHP due to its workload in assessing claims in April 2018. The Council says it did not deal with the claim within its own target of 30 days and has apologised. This is suitable action for the Council to take.
35. Ms X complains the Council decided to calculate her entitlement to DHP monthly rather than for six months. The Council explained this was due to the uncertainties about Ms X’s pay each month. While Ms X is unhappy about the Council’s decision it is one the Council is entitled to make to decide an applicant’s entitlement to DHP.
36. The Council has offered Ms X £250 as an ex gratia payment in recognition of the issues she has faced in dealing with her Council Tax, Housing Benefit and DHP. It has also apologised to Ms X for any distress caused. I consider the ex gratia payment to be a suitable remedy for Ms X for the faults by the Council I have identified and the injustice she has been caused. I am also satisfied Ms X has received an apology from the Council. And the Council has implemented new procedures in Council Tax for dealing with a customer with a DRO.
37. Ms X considers the Council’s delay in dealing with her anomalous payslip in April 2018 caused her issues with her landlord. And its decision to use the payslip to determine her benefits. As the Council advised and its documents show Ms X did not provide suitable proof from her employer about the April 2018 wages. So, the Council sought the information from Ms X’s employer which did take some time. It also meant it needed to use the April 2018 payslip when determining Ms X’s claim. While this is unfortunate, I do not consider it is fault by the Council.
38. The Council has used the ex gratia payment to offset Ms X’s outstanding liabilities and money owed. This is standard practice in such cases and Ms X has moved from her accommodation with a credit refunded to her. Because the Council’s actions, apology and payment to Ms X I do not consider I can achieve anything more for her. The Council’s investigations into her complaint at Stage two were thorough and so I do not consider any further investigation will lead me to a different outcome on the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I am completing my investigation. There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms X’s Council Tax account following the granting of a DRO. But the Council’s action and ex gratia payment to Ms X is suitable to remedy any injustice caused to her.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

40. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s recovery of a Housing Benefit overpayment. This is because if Ms X did not consider she was liable to repay the overpayment it was open to her to appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. As paragraph four explains we will not usually investigate a complaint where there is a right of appeal to a Tribunal unless we consider it is unreasonable to expect a person to do so. In this case I consider it reasonable to expect Ms X to exercise her right of appeal to the Tribunal. This is because the Tribunal can assess Ms X’s appeal, the facts of the case and make a decision on the overpayment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman