Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed sending his request for a review of his housing benefit decision to the tribunal. We have completed our investigation. The Council accepts it was at fault and has identified a suitable remedy. It agrees to pay Mr X £275. We have recommended further action to remedy injustice to others who have not complained.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council took 17 months to send his request for a review of his housing benefit decision to the tribunal.
2. As a result, Mr X says he faced an extended period of avoidable uncertainty and distress and could not effectively manage his finances.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
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 spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. In February 2018, the Council recalculated Mr X’s claim for Housing Benefit. It decided it had paid him too much and created an overpayment.
10. In March 2018, Mr X wrote to the Council. He asked for the Council to send the decision to the Tribunal Service.
11. In April 2018, the Council reconsidered its decision. It reached the same conclusion, finding that it had overpaid Mr X. The letter explained what Mr X needed to do to appeal the decision to the Tribunal Service.
12. In May 2018 Mr X wrote to the Council requesting an appeal to the Tribunal Service.
13. The Council sent Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal Service in August 2019.

Findings

14. It took the Council 13 months to send Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 say that Councils must send cases to the Tribunal “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
15. The Ombudsman’s view is that it should usually take no longer than four weeks to send an appeal to the Tribunal Service. Therefore, I find the Council delayed sending Mr X’s appeal to the tribunal by at least 12 months. This is fault.
16. In response to my enquiries, the Council says it “acknowledges that there was a considerable delay” in sending the appeal to the Tribunal. It has offered to pay Mr X £275 for the distress and uncertainty caused by this delay.
17. Mr X says the delay also caused him financial hardship. The Tribunal eventually overturned the Council’s decision. The Council then had to pay Mr X almost £2,500 in underpaid housing benefit.
18. The Council’s delay did mean there was a delay in in Mr X receiving the housing benefit the Council owed him. However due to personal circumstances Mr X’s finances improved a month after he sought the appeal. He ceased to be eligible for Housing Benefit as a result. Therefore, fortunately, the delay did not cause him financial hardship. In the circumstances, I find the Council’s offer of £275 a suitable remedy for the distress and uncertainty it caused Mr X.

Injustice to others

19. In response to my enquiries, the Council says it takes longer than four weeks for it to send five out of six appeal requests it receives to the tribunal. In the 2019/2020 tax year, the Council says it took an average of 224 days to send an appeal to the tribunal.
20. Therefore, it is likely that other people who have not complained have also suffered an injustice. The Council should prioritise any outstanding requests over four weeks old and tell the Ombudsman when it will refer these cases to the tribunal. If there has been delay which impacts on the claimant’s current entitlement, the Council should offer a remedy proportional to the delay.
21. The Council says it has taken action to prevent similar delays occurring in future. It says is has “increased staff resourcing for the Appeals Team”. It also says:

“to ensure regular monitoring of the Appeals Team performance, work received, completed and the speed of processing are all recorded and reviewed at each monthly team meeting and line managers meeting.”

22. These improvements are welcome.

Agreed action

23. The Council has identified a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mr X. It has agreed to pay him £275.
24. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
25. The Council has delayed sending other appeals to the Tribunal. This may have caused injustice to other claimants. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to:
• Prioritise any outstanding requests over four weeks old;
• Tell the Ombudsman by when it will refer these cases to the Tribunal; and
• Where there has been delay which impacts on a claimant’s current entitlement, offer a remedy proportional to the delay.
26. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. The Council accepts it was at fault, and has identified a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mr X. I have recommended further action to remedy injustice to others who have not complained.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman