Summary: There was fault in the Council’s handling of Ms B’s housing benefit claim which meant she did not receive the benefit to which she was entitled. The Council will apologise, make a payment to her and review its procedures

The complaint

1. Ms B complains the Council delayed in dealing with her appeal against the decision on her entitlement to housing benefit and that when it did deal with it revised its decision rather than passing her appeal to the tribunal. She further complains that it did not deal with all the matters she raised in the appeal.
2. She says that as a result she suffered hardship as for the period between May and September 2018 when she received no benefit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 considered the complaint and spoke to Ms B. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of what happened

7. Ms B was receiving housing benefit. She started a new job in November 2017. In May 2018 the Council received details of her salary from the Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC). The Council recalculated her entitlement to benefit and assessed she was no longer entitled and there was also an overpayment. The Council notified Ms B of the decision in May 2018.
8. Ms B requested the Council review the decision. The Council maintained its view that her income was too high.
9. In August the Council wrote to Ms B asking her to provide information about her child care costs. Ms B provided that along with copies of payslips in September. This resulted in the Council revising its decision. Housing benefit was reinstated at £117 a week and a back-payment of £1353 was made.
10. Ms B complained to the Council about the rate at which it was recovering the overpayment from her and about its calculation of her ongoing entitlement to housing benefit. The Council responded to Ms B’s complaint in November explaining its position on the level at which she should pay back the overpayment. It also said that any question about her entitlement to benefit should be considered through the appeal process.
11. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman about both the entitlement to benefit and the recovery of the overpayment. We did not investigate either complaint. We considered there was insufficient evidence of fault on the question about the rate of recovery of the overpayment. And on the questions about her entitlement to housing benefit we said she should use her appeal rights to the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (the Tribunal). At the end of January Ms B submitted an online form to the Council requesting an appeal into the decision.
12. The Council did not refer the appeal to the Tribunal and instead carried out an internal review. It wrote to Ms B in early October. It explained it had found an error - when looking at the salary information supplied by HMRC in May 2018 it had added one month twice. This meant that it had overestimated her income and she had been underpaid benefit by £822.
13. Ms B was unhappy with the decision because of the delay and because she had not asked for a review by the Council but for it to be referred to the Tribunal. Also she said she had referred in her appeal to the level at which the Council was recovering an overpayment from her ongoing benefit. She did not dispute the overpayment but considered the deductions should be reduced. In the appeal response the Council did not refer to this.

Analysis

14. Ms B had a right of appeal against the decisions the Council made about her entitlement to benefit. Ms B has made some requests for review and appeal but they have not been considered by the Tribunal. That means I have discretion to consider her complaints. I do not consider it would be reasonable for her to appeal now as the entitlement to benefit is not in dispute. I am therefore considering all aspects of her complaint.
15. The Council made a mistake when it considered the salary information from HMRC in May 2018. The Council only identified the error when it considered Ms B’s review in October 2019. The Council had the chance to correct it in June 2018 when it considered Ms B’s first review request or again in September 2018 when it considered the further information she submitted. That had included her payslips. Instead the Council just recalculated her income from April and assumed its earlier figures for her salary were correct.
16. The error has been compounded by the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s review request in January 2019. Ms B had wanted it to be referred straight to the Tribunal. It is open to the Council to carry out a reconsideration when an appeal is submitted where it has not already done so. But this was, in effect, a request for a review of the matter the Council had already looked at several times before. If the Council had dealt with the review quickly any failure to refer it to the Tribunal would be of little consequence but it took the Council seven months – that is fault.
17. The errors here have meant Ms B had four months with no benefit when she should have been receiving about £75 a week. Also it has meant she did not receive £822 for the period from 27 November 2017 to 1 April 2018 until October 2019. That is a significant injustice to her and has caused her hardship which the Council should now remedy by making a payment to her of £350.
18. The Council has commented that it currently has a backlog of review requests from May 2019. That is not acceptable, we would consider any such review should be completed within 28 days. The Council should address this problem.
19. Ms B said the Council had failed to deal with the point she made in her January 2019 appeal request about the rate of recovery of the overpayment. On the form Ms B does mention about her outgoings which the Council had queried when considering her request to reduce the rate of recovery of the overpayment. But it is not clear that Ms B is raising it as a separate point. And this would not be something that could be considered as part of an appeal to the Tribunal. So I do not consider there was any fault in the Council not responding to this point.

Agree action

20. The Council will:
• apologise to Ms B and pay her £350; and,
• take action to ensure review requests are dealt with correctly and within a reasonable time.
21. It should complete the first point within a month and the second within two months and inform the Ombudsman of the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault in the Council’s handling of Ms B’s housing benefit claim which meant she did not receive the benefit to which she was entitled. The Council should apologise, make a payment to her and review its procedures.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman