Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal properly with his complaint that a housing benefit officer made threats when suggesting the landlord should reduce the tenants’ rent. There is no injustice to Mr X or the housing provider he represents. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for a housing provider that the Council rejected his complaint about the conduct of an officer who decided that fifteen tenants are not eligible for housing benefit. Mr X says the officer made threats that if the landlord did not reduce the rent the Council would use the benefit regulations to stop benefit. Mr X says the Council failed to investigate his complaint, or ignored the evidence, and it should do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complains (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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s comments, information and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the Council’s 2018 communications with Mr X on his complaint and the benefit decision. I have clarified the current position with the Council.

Back to top

What I found

7. On 25 May 2018, the Council’s benefit officer emailed Mr X and suggested that the rent charged was in excess of similar providers within the Council’s area. The email says: ‘I would therefore ask you to revisit the amount being charged and consider making adjustments to the amounts being charged where possible. If you feel this is not possible I would ask that you justify the following charges by providing evidence of expenditure as follows…’ The Council also says it might decide there is no entitlement to benefit which it can do if the tenancy was created to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme. It repeats Mr X should reconsider the rent charged.
8. On 18 October 2018 the Council wrote to Mr X to explain its decision to cancel the tenants’ benefit. The letter gives two reasons for the tenants not being eligible for benefit. First, that the arrangements in place had: ‘been done in order to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme…’. Second, that the accommodation should not be treated as ‘exempt supported accommodation’ due to the required level of care and support not being provided. The letter informed Mr X that he could, on behalf of the tenants, seek an internal review of the decision or he could appeal the decision to the Tribunals Service.
9. Mr X sent the Council an ‘application for reconsideration’ (dated 16 November 2018) of the decision to stop the housing benefit of the fifteen tenants. On 22 November 2018 the Council wrote to Mr X and asked for information. The email asks: ‘whether it is an option to reduce the rental liability’.
10. On 19 March 2019 Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X says, referring to the email of 25 May, that the benefits officer used language which amounted to ‘blackmail and/or veiled threats.’ Mr X says a landlord’s decision not to reduce the rent should not result in: ‘threatening the landlord with a decision that the tenancies will be found to have been contrived or circumvent the housing benefit regulations’.
11. On 20 May 2019 the Council sent Mr X its final complaint reply. This says there is no unreasonable conduct by the officer who was acting within her remit, when assessing the level of rent. The Council’s complaint procedure does not deal with matters which are appealable to a tribunal. It says the appeals mechanism is dealing with the tenants benefit claims.
12. On 18 June 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X and gave its decision on his November request to reconsider the benefit refusal. The Council apologises for the delay (it tells me it is dealing with this as a separate complaint). It explains why it will not change the decision. The Council says tenants have a right of appeal to the Tribunal and an appeal should be made within one month to the Council. It says it was sending tenants a copy of the decision. The Council tells me it has not received an appeal.

Analysis

13. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Council is entitled to decide there was no unreasonable conduct by the officer and that she was acting within her remit. It is for the Council to decide if it wants to act against an individual officer. The Council correctly advised Mr X that he could complain to this office if he disagreed with its decision on his complaint. It does not need to do more.
2. The Ombudsman view is that the Council is responsible for the actions of its officers including decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s communications with Mr X. The Council is entitled to discuss the level of the rent, warn of possible consequences, and explain its views. That gives a landlord, or claimant, the opportunity to provide evidence, take action to avoid an unwelcome outcome, or take independent advice.
3. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is no injustice to Mr X (acting on behalf of the housing provider) from the officer’s words. The Council’s decision was to stop the tenants housing benefit. If a tenant wishes to dispute that decision they have or had a right of appeal to the Social Security Tribunal which would put such a complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 4 and 5 above). If a tenant could not pay the rent that is a matter between the tenant and the landlord. If a landlord was to reduce the rent that is a decision for him, and he could take independent advice. I asked Mr X to clarify his injustice (which is not clear from his complaint form) and he has not done so.
4. I do not consider it a good use of limited public resources to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal properly with his complaint that a housing benefit officer made threats when suggesting the landlord should reduce the rent. There is no injustice to Mr X or the housing provider he represents. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman