Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her housing benefit claim. This is because the Council has accepted it made mistakes and has offered a payment of £150. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more. Also, if Miss X disputes the Council’s decision about an overpayment, it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her housing benefit claim. She says the Council miscalculated her claim which led to rent arrears. Miss X is worried the Council could make the same mistakes again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

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. 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

5. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council has responded to complaints from Miss X about how it dealt with her housing benefit claim. It has explained the overpayment occurred because Miss X told the Council retrospectively about changes in her circumstances. It has explained that because Miss X is not entitled to full housing benefit, it is up to her to meet any shortfall in her rent. The Council has accepted there were mistakes in the way it communicated with Miss X. It has apologised and offered £150.
7. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint we need to consider what we can achieve for the person complaining. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive, and only look at the most serious. We do not award compensation but can recommend token payments to cover things such as distress.
8. The Council has provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to Miss X’s complaint. It has explained what happened, apologised, and offered to pay her £150 for “confusion and stress”. When we do investigate a complaint and find fault causing injustice, we use our Guidance on Remedies to help calculate any recommended payments. For distress, our guidance recommends a figure of between £100 and £300. On balance, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more for Miss X. Further involvement by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.
9. If Miss X disputes how the Council has calculated her housing benefit, she can appeal to the tribunal detailed in paragraph 4. I see no reason Miss X should not use this right. The tribunal is an expert, impartial body, set up by parliament, to allow people to challenge housing benefit decisions. This is not the role of the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more and it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman