Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s failure to make a correct decision about her housing benefit led to her eviction. The Council investigated when Ms X’s change in circumstances led to a review of her housing benefit claim. The evidence shows that as Ms X did not provide information about her partner’s address until after her eviction, the Council could not reinstate the claim until it received this information. The Council was not at fault and was not responsible for Ms X’s eviction.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s failure to make a correct decision about her housing benefit led to her eviction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 read the papers submitted by Ms X.
7. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
8. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered these prior to issuing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. Ms X claimed housing benefit since 2011. Her claim included her and her children, but not her partner Mr Y who did not live at her address. Ms X says that the 2011 claim included the information that some of her income came from tax credits based on her partner Mr Y’s income. Ms X says the yearly letters said to contact housing benefit if her circumstances changed, which they did not.
10. On 9 November 2017 the Housing benefit team reviewed Ms X’s claim as her daughter had reached the age where she was not eligible for child benefit. The Council wrote to Ms X asking for more information.
11. Ms X replied but on carrying out a full review the Council noted Ms X’s partner was on a Tax Credit claim but not the housing benefit claim. On 28 November 2017 the Council asked for further information about Mr Y.
12. On 30 January 2018 Ms X’s Housing Benefit claim was suspended due to a review of her entitlement and her failure to provide evidence requested on 28 November. Ms X says that it took until January to get the information the Council wanted as she needed to get copies of tax credits letters and she kept the Council informed of the delay.
13. The Council asked for more information in February 2018, as Ms X’s claim was based on Mr Y’s income but he was not living at the property. Ms X said she provided what information she could.
14. The Council cancelled Ms X’s housing benefit claim on 9 April 2018. The Council backdated it to October 2017 as Ms X would not say where Mr Y was living.
15. Meanwhile Ms X’s landlord, from whom she had rented for 14 years, served notice that she would take Ms X to court to get possession of the house as the rent was not being paid.
16. On 1 May 2018 the courts said that Ms X had to leave her home on 23 May 2018.
17. Ms X appealed against the Council’s decision to cancel her housing benefit on 2 May 2018. On 17 May the Council passed the claim back to the assessment team rather than carry out a review. The assessor upheld the original decision that partner was living at the property and did not reinstate the claim.
18. Ms X made a further appeal on 3 July 2018. The Council reconsidered its decision at a review and upheld its decision on 13 July.
19. Ms X requested her appeal went to tribunal on 13 August. The Council said this appeal was not duly made. Ms X made a further appeal in September 2018.
20. The Council said that it agreed to set up a meeting with Ms X to try and establish why she would not disclose the partner’s address.
21. At the meeting on 26 September 2018 the Council says ‘Ms X disclosed information of a sensitive nature which she was assured would be treated as confidential and would not be noted on her case file. She was advised that should there be a requirement for audit to know the information it would need to be disclosed. This information allowed her previously cancelled claim to be reinstated’. Ms X was also told at the meeting that the Council could pay Housing Benefit on her temporary accommodation and the Council paid this from 27 September 2018.
22. Ms X has written to the Council to say that she intends to take legal action to get over £24,000 compensation from the Council. At present, I understand that no court proceedings have started.

My analysis

23. Ms X complains the Council’s decision to cancel her housing benefit led to her eviction from her home. She says the information about her partners tax credits was on her claim in 2011, so why was her claim cancelled in 2017.
24. I understand Ms X’s view. However, just because the Council accepted the information in 2011 it does not prevent it reconsidering the matter. So, I cannot say this was fault.
25. The Council asked Ms X for more information. It seems that if she had given the information on her personal circumstances in November 2017 rather than waiting till September 2018 it is unlikely the Council would have cancelled her claim and she may not have been evicted. I do not know the confidential reasons, which are between Ms X and the Council. So, I cannot really comment on why this information could not be disclosed earlier.
26. I do not find fault by the Council that led to Ms X’s eviction. The Council reassessed Ms X’s claim and cancelled the claim when she did not explain where Mr Y lived, if he was not at her address. The Council reviewed Ms X’s claim and when provided with the further information in September 2018 on Mr Y’s address, reinstated her claim to housing benefit. I can see no written evidence that Ms X told the Council before then that she wanted to meet to be able to share confidential information. There does not seem to be any way for the Council to have known why she did not give Mr Y’s address.
27. After Ms X’s eviction, the Council could have put through Ms X’s request for an appeal more promptly rather than carry out another assessment and then a review. But this did not disadvantage Ms X, as it led to the meeting with the Council officers who reinstated her claim. This was probably quicker than waiting for an appeal and produced the outcome she sought. So, I do not find fault on this point. This approach actually led to the reinstatement of her housing benefit claim, which may not have happened at a tribunal if Ms X had not felt able to share the confidential information.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld, as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council that caused injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman