Summary: The complaint is about the Council saying Mr B should repay housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint. This is mainly because of Mr B’s right to appeal to a tribunal. There is also insufficient evidence the Council is demanding money it previously said was not owed.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council is wrongly demanding he repay some housing benefit, despite the Council having previously decided he need not repay it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 the information Mr B provided, including a response from the Council to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on this draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B says the Council is demanding he repay some housing benefit despite previously deciding he need not repay it. The Council says its communications referred to different matters. It says it reversed one decision that Mr B had been overpaid but it had also decided there were separate overpayments, which it wants Mr B to repay. The Council referred to previous correspondence in which it set out its various decisions and explained Mr B’s appeal rights. I understand Mr B has not appealed to the tribunal. It appears some of the appeal rights have expired.
7. The evidence I have seen suggests the money the Council is now seeking is not the same as the sum it previously said Mr B did not owe. So I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault on this point.
8. The underlying issue here is that Mr B and the Council disagree about what Mr B owes. Mr B had or has the right to appeal to the tribunal about that so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. The tribunal has the expertise to deal with such matters and the power to change the Council’s decisions as it sees fit. I have not seen evidence why it would not be reasonable to expect Mr B to appeal, or to have appealed before the rights expired. So I shall not pursue this point.
9. I note the Council stated one debt was £2194.07 when it was actually £834.50. The Council apologised for that fault. I consider that was sufficient remedy on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because of Mr B’s appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice on a matter the Ombudsman can investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman