Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y, the Council delayed dealing with his housing benefit appeal. The Council was at fault for the delay in passing the appeal to tribunal. It was not at fault for reconsidering the appeal but was at fault for not passing the appeal to tribunal after the reconsideration. This did not cause Mr Y a significant injustice as the Council did not take recovery action while awaiting the appeal and Mr Y has now had his appeal. The Council should review its procedures to prevent recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council
1. Unreasonably delayed dealing with his housing benefit appeal;
2. Failed to respond to a direction issued by a tribunal judge; and
3. Introduced an extra statutory requirement into the appeal procedure.
2. This delayed Mr Y’s opportunity to have his appeal considered at a tribunal causing him frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
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) 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)
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 have considered the information provided by Mr X and have spoken to him on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s complaint response, its response to my enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
7. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and considered their comments in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Housing benefit helps people on low incomes to pay their rent. It is a means tested benefit, taking both capital and income into account. Claimants are responsible for ensuring they update the council with any changes in their circumstances. Failure to do so can affect the housing benefit paid.
9. The council must make a decision about housing benefit in writing. The decision notice must also advise claimants of their rights to ask for more information and to appeal. If a claimant disagrees with a decision they can ask the council to review it. The council must then review the decision again. (Housing Benefit Regulations 2006)
10. Where an appeal has been reviewed the Council and they have decided not to review the decision advantageously to the appellant, the appellant has the right to make further representations to the Council for up to a month following the review. If the decision is not reviewed again advantageously, the appeal must be passed to the tribunal. (The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001)
11. If the decision remains unchanged they must pass the matter to the tribunal “as soon as reasonably practicable”. (Rule 24(1A) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008)
12. In January 2020 we published a focus report on housing benefits. This set out that regulations do not specify how long councils should take to reply to housing benefit appeals. But they must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable. Our principles of good administrative practice encourage councils to make timely decisions and proactively explain the reasons for any delays. As a benchmark we consider councils should aim to process appeals within four weeks.

What happened

13. Mr Y claimed housing benefit. In 2018 the Council became aware his circumstances had changed and in October 2018 it suspended his claim to prevent an overpayment occurring. The Council decided Mr Y had been overpaid housing benefit of around £5,000 for the period 2014 to 2018. Mr Y appealed against the decision in January 2019.
14. The Council wrote to Mr Y in March 2019 advising him that his appeal request had been treated as a “reconsideration” and the Council decided not to alter their original decision. Mr Y was asked if he wished to appeal further to a tribunal.
15. Mr X wrote to the Council, on Mr Y’s behalf, in March 2019 questioning the need for a reconsideration and asking that the appeal be forwarded to the tribunal.
16. As he heard nothing further from the Council, Mr X asked a tribunal judge to issue a direction to the Council to forward the appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal service confirmed on 29 July that it had received the appeal.
17. In August 2019 Mr X complained to the Council, on Mr Y’s behalf, about the delay in passing his appeal to the tribunal. In its response of November 2019, the Council said ‘the appeal staff have now caught up with outstanding workload which is where the delay was in providing submission documents’. It said the Council was entitled in law to ensure it had exhausted all opportunities to resolve the matter before a hearing was required. The Council said that it employed an external reviewer to review appeal requests and this had assisted the appeals process.

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about any matter which was appealed, or could have been appealed, to a tribunal. The Ombudsman can, however, investigate the appeal process itself.
19. The Council was allowed in law to review the appeal made by Mr Y and ask the appellant whether they wished to make any further comments. This process could take up to a month. If the review was not in Mr Y’s favour, he was not obliged to ask that the appeal be forwarded to the tribunal; this should have been done without further consideration by the Council. The Ombudsman considers that this could have been done reasonably within four weeks.
20. Whilst the law provides that the Council could seek further comments from Mr Y following the reconsideration, the Council did not need to ask Mr Y if he wished to make a further appeal. This may have added to the delay.
21. This delay of approximately four months in passing the appeal to tribunal is fault. Mr Y was appealing against an overpayment of housing benefit. The delay did not cause Mr Y a significant injustice as the repayment was suspended during this time.
22. The Ombudsman does not consider it fault for the Council to employ an external reviewer or that an appeal is reconsidered before the appeal is passed to the tribunal.

Agreed action

23. Within two months of the final decision the Council has agreed to review its appeals process to ensure that no unreasonable delays are caused by asking appellants to unnecessarily request a further appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault although this did not cause a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman