Summary: Mr C complains for his client Mr D about the way the Council dealt with claims for Housing Benefit. We find no fault in respect of the substantive matters. There was fault in failing to tell Mr D during a telephone conversation that his claim had been cancelled, and there was fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint. However, those faults did not lead to injustice requiring remedy.

The complaint

1. A representative, whom I shall call Mr C, complains on behalf of his client Mr D that the Council failed to deal appropriately with his requests for assistance with benefit claims. He reports that this led to a lapsing of his claim for Housing Benefit and to advice to claim Universal Credit, which he says the Council wrongly told him would not mean he would be financially worse off. As a result, he has suffered a reduction in his income of more than £100 a month. In addition, the Council’s handling of the complaint was inadequate.

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’. 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)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr C about this complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response.
6. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

Housing benefit appeals

7. If someone disagrees with a housing benefit decision they can ask for a review or appeal to the tribunal. If they have a review, and are unhappy with the decision, they can then appeal to the tribunal. The law says people should appeal within one month of the date of the decision they think is wrong.

Universal credit

8. Universal Credit includes an element for the claimant’s rent, and replaces housing benefit. As Universal Credit is administered by central government the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman considers complaints about it, not the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The change of circumstances – housing benefit is suspended

9. On 2 October 2018, the Council received information from the landlord of Address X that Mr D had a new tenancy there from 27 September 2018. Acting on this information, the Council suspended Mr D’s Housing Benefit (HB) claim and his Council Tax Reduction (CTR) on 4 October. It wrote to him at this new address the following day advising of this and asking him to complete an online form in respect of the change of circumstances within a month. The letter set out that as an alternative to doing this online he could take or post the information to customer services, and a telephone number was given for any query. A ‘benefit notice of suspension’ was issued.

Housing benefit is cancelled

10. Having received no contact from Mr D within the one-month timescale, on 6 November it issued a benefit decision notice stating the claim had been cancelled with effect from 30 September 2018. It again asked him to complete a change of circumstances form online or visit customer services. The cancellation notice gave a further period of one month to respond, which would allow the decision to end the benefit to be revised and the claim to be reopened with no break in the award.
11. Mr D says that the Council sent the letters to his new address, despite him having told it he would not be moving for more than a month. I have not seen evidence to show that Mr D had told the Council this. In any event it is clear that Mr D received the Council’s second letter at least, because he reports that when he saw the letter, he noted that the change of circumstances information needed to be supplied, he went to the Council to ask for help, because he does no use computers. Mr D told the Council in his initial complaint he had been to the Council more than 11 times in a week but was consistently told staff were too busy to assist; in later correspondence he referred to having been to the Council two or three times a week.

What happened next

12. The Council states that Mr D telephoned on 16 November and advised he would go customer services. When it responded later to Mr D’s complaint it noted what had been recorded during that telephone call. It noted that Mr D had said it had been a while since he had contacted the Council and he explained this was due to some health issues he had been dealing with. The Council’s advisor told him about the letter issued on 4 October notifying him that his claim had been suspended, and he had replied that he had moved to the new address on 8 November. There was then a discussion about the need to fill in a change of circumstances form and the availability of help with this at customer services dependent on how busy they were. He advised he would attend as discussed.
13. The Council noted when responding to Mr D’s complaint that the call on 16 November was already after the deadline of the 4 November 2018, and so in fact Mr D’s claim had already been cancelled by then. It acknowledged the advisor should have told him this, but that an online claim form for CTR would still be needed if he wished to claim this. The Council apologised that Mr D was not given this information during the call. But in any event the Council had issued the written notification of the cancellation on 6 November, so it is more likely than not that Mr D would have received it by the time he made the call.
14. On 27 November 2018 Mr D contacted customer services again, initially by contacting the benefit helpline. The officer dealing with his query checked the status of his claim with colleagues was advised that as Mr D had not responded within the time limits to letters about his change of address, he would need to make a claim to Universal Credit (UC). The Council says Mr D had already made a claim to UC by this time, having done so on 16 November. The online CTR application form completed with the assistance of customer services later on 27 November noted, in the section for additional information, “I did not understand that I needed to put in a new application due to being advised to apply for Universal Credit”.

Request for backdating of benefit

15. On 15 January 2019 Mr D requested HB for the period from be paid from 30 September to 15 November 2018, effectively to close the gap between when his HB had ended, and his UC had begun. The Council treated this as a request for a revision of its decision of 5 November 2018 when HB had been terminated at the old address, because of the reported change of address. It decided good cause existed for the late notification of the change of circumstances and HB was awarded for the period requested. The Council also decided Mr D was entitled to a two-week ‘transitional award’, for the first period of his UC claim, 16 to 29 November 2018.

Mr D makes a complaint

16. In October 2019 Mr D complained to the Council about how it had dealt with the benefit matters relating to his change of address. He said that having received the letter telling him a change of circumstances form was needed he went to the Council many times to ask for help but had been turned away, and that by the time someone dealt with him he was told his claim had stopped and that he would have to claim UC. He also said he was told he would not be worse off financially by doing so, which was not correct.

Analysis

17. The Council was not at fault in acting to suspend and later cancel Mr D’s HB when it had received notification from his new landlord about a change of address. It notified him about what he needed to do and the timescales in which he needed to respond, and he had a duty to report such changes of circumstances. Regarding Mr D’s assertions about being turned away from customer services numerous times without help, there is no supporting evidence for this although the Council has acknowledged that at busy times there may not be staff available to assist. However, Mr D was able to use the telephone and he did so on 16 November. There was fault by the Council at this point in that, as noted above, it did not advise him his claim had been cancelled. However, I do not consider this caused injustice. The Council had issued the written notification of the cancellation on 6 November, so it is more likely than not that Mr D would have had that information by the time he made the call, and Mr D still needed to attend to complete a change of address form for his CTR claim, which he did on 27 November.
18. I have seen no evidence to support the contention that the Council told Mr D he needed to claim UC at any point prior to 27 November, when this advice was recorded in the Council’s records. When it responded to Mr D’s complaint the Council noted that in the telephone call on 27 November, Mr D questioned why he would have to claim UC, and his representative referred to an appointment in respect of that claim scheduled for the next day.
19. I have seen not seen any evidence to support the contention that Mr D was told by the Council that he would not be financially worse off by claiming UC.

Complaint handling

20. The Council replied to Mr D’s complaints at the first and second stages of its procedure within the relevant 20 working day timescales. The Council received Mr D’s request for escalation of his complaint the third stage of the Council’s procedure on 10 December 2019 and acknowledged this promptly. However, the Council did not issue its substantive response until 14 October 2020, having been prompted to do so by my enquiries. That delay was fault. However, when the Council did reply, not upholding the complaint, it apologised for the delay. Mr D was not caused significant injustice requiring further remedy: he was able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman