Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend his wife’s housing benefit. This is because the complaint is late and it was reasonable to appeal to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council suspended his wife’s housing benefit in 2017 because of her savings. Mr X says they had borrowed the money to improve their credit rating and should not be penalised for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says the Council suspended his wife’s housing benefit in 2017 due to their savings. Mr X says they had borrowed the money to improve their credit rating. Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision.
7. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained much earlier, and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to his complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the point I make below.
8. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision about their housing benefit. Decisions about entitlement to housing benefit can be appealed to the tribunal I refer to in paragraph 4. The tribunal is an independent, expert body, set up by Parliament, as a way for the public to challenge decisions about housing benefit. When there is a right to appeal to a tribunal, the Ombudsman normally expects people to use this right, unless it is unreasonable for them to do so. I see no reason Mr and Mrs X could not have appealed to the tribunal.
9. The evidence I have seen suggests a solicitor acting for Mrs X has asked the Council to reconsider its decision. If Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with its decision, there will be fresh appeal rights as set out above. The tribunal is in a better position than the Ombudsman to decide the issue at the heart of this complaint.

Back to top

Fianl decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, and it was reasonable to appeal to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman