Summary: Mr X complains the Council unreasonably delayed taking recovery action for a debt he owned. He complained there was a failure to respond to his correspondence properly. I found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there was an unreasonable delay in the Council taking action to recover overpaid housing benefits from 2012. Mr X says he has no recollection of receiving notification of the overpayment, and his appeal rights in 2012 when the overpayment occurred.
2. Mr X complains it took a further two years of emails with the Council before it sent a proper explanation of the overpayment. He complained the Council has since passed the debt to a bailiff without assessing his ability to repay it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and asked the Council for information, I considered the evidence on file and the Council’s response to the complaint.
6. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Mr X’s complaint

7. In 2017 the Council wrote to Mr X to follow up on an outstanding Housing Benefit debt. The debt occurred because of an overpayment of Housing Benefit to Mr X back in 2012.
8. Mr X stated he was working on a part time flexible contract and he had provided information about his earnings to the Council. He believed the overpayment was caused by an error by the Council, rather than an omission on his part.
9. Mr X says as a student he moved houses every year. Mr X stated there were four other people in the property so there was a lot of post about benefits to the address.
10. Mr X felt the Council should have detected the error that led to the overpayment earlier and dealt with it more promptly. He complained to the Ombudsman that it was many years before the Council told him about the debt and the Council accepted it had not been followed up as quickly as it should have been due to a staffing issue.

The Council’s position

11. The Council provided us with copies of the letters sent to Mr X in September 2012 and November 2012 to tell him he had been overpaid housing benefit. The Council told us it was alerted to the overpayment of benefits when Mr X sent it bank statements and payslips in August 2012 and October 2012. In August Mr X sent the Council payslips for March, June and July 2012. In October he provided payslips from August and September 2012.
12. The Council’s letter dated 5 September 2012 referred to an overpayment of housing benefit from July 2012. Its letter dated 2 November 2012 referred to overpayment of housing benefit from August 2012.
13. Both the letters explained that if Mr X disagreed with the decision he could ask the Council to review its decision, and then make an appeal to the Independent Tribunal Service.
14. The Council passed the debt to a debt recovery team in July 2013. The Council provided us with evidence it chased the debt in 2013. It sent an invoice on 18 July 2013 and a chaser letter on 8 August 2013. However, the Council accepts due to the lack of staff availability it was not able to follow up the debt as quickly as it would have liked after August 2013.
15. The debt was followed up in 2017. Since that time the Council has been in correspondence with Mr X who has disputed the overpayment itself and the delay pursuing it.
16. Mr X told the Council he had moved from the house the Council had been writing to the year after he claimed housing benefit. He stated he found no reason to tell the Council of the new address. He stated, as a result, he did not receive correspondence after this point, and he felt he would have been unable to appeal as the council suggested.
17. The correspondence from the Council indicates it sent financial forms to Mr X to complete, it answered queries, sent copies of earlier correspondence and explained the calculation of the overpayments. The Council also discussed Mr X’s employment status with him and asked him to make repayments.
18. The Council confirmed that it does take account of someone’s ability to pay and it invited Mr X to complete income and expenditure forms which he has done. It confirmed that its enforcement agents will agree payment arrangements taking account of the debtor’s ability to pay.

Was there fault by the Council?

19. There is evidence the Council notified Mr X of the overpayments promptly after he provided payslips. The letter sent on 5 September 2012 related to overpayments from the July 2012. This was in response to Mr X sending his July payslip at the end of August. The letter sent to Mr X on 2 November 2012 related to overpayments from August 2012. This was in response to Mr X sending August payslips to the Council in October 2012. So, there was no delay in issuing the letters explaining the overpayments had occurred.
20. I recognise that Mr X does not recall receiving these letters and told us that he did not receive them. However, the copies of the letters sent to Mr X provide evidence that, on the balance of probability, these were sent, and Mr X was notified of the overpayment issue promptly after it was identified. Appeals need to be made within a month of receiving the overpayment notification. However, late appeals are possible with 13 months. The Council also followed up the debt in 2013 within the 13 month period that Mr X could have requested a late appeal.
21. The correspondence the Council sent to Mr X in 2013 and afterwards was sent to the address the Council held for him. I understand Mr X moved and did not advise the council of his current address. It is standard practice for councils to write to people at the address they hold for them. Although Mr X argues that he was not able to appeal because correspondence was sent to him at an address he no longer lived at, I found that he was notified of his rights of appeal while living at the property concerned. In addition, it was not the fault of the Council that it did not hold his up to date address.
22. I recognise that Mr X disagrees with the overpayment decisions. He feels the Council made an error and the overpayments are incorrect. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the overpayments themselves are correct and should stand. This is because there is a tribunal service specifically to enable people to challenge benefit decisions if they disagree with them. The Ombudsman would expect benefits recipients to use their rights of appeal. The letters sent to Mr X in 2012 explained Mr X could appeal the decisions if he wished to.
23. The Council accepts that after 2013, it did not have sufficient resource to pursue outstanding debts such as the one Mr X owed. Because of this, no action was taken between 2013 and 2017 to chase Mr X for repayment. This is clearly not ideal. However, the Council remains entitled to follow up debts despite this delay. On balance I do not consider the delay in chasing the debt after 2013 was fault by the Council. The delay did not lead to any injustice to Mr X.
24. There is evidence the Council responded to Mr X’s correspondence about the overpayments properly. It sent copies of the original notification letters and responded to his queries. I do not consider there was any significant delay in responding to Mr X’s queries from 2017.
25. Having considered Mr X’s complaint and the evidence the Council holds on its records I found there was not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman