Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for Universal Credit and about its delay in dealing with his complaint. There is no evidence to confirm the Council gave Mr X wrong advice. But we find fault with the Council’s complaints handling and its lack of clarity about Mr X reclaiming Housing Benefit. This caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr X and has agreed to make a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for Universal Credit. He also complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says the incorrect information the Council gave him caused him financial loss. This includes loss of Mr X’s Housing Benefit, Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits.

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. 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

5. I considered the information Mr X submitted with his complaint. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
6. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Universal Credit is a benefit system which replaces six different legacy benefits for working age claimants. These are Housing Benefit, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Income Support, Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Based Employment and Support Allowance.
8. A person already in receipt of Housing Benefit does not need to move onto Universal Credit unless they have a change in circumstances.
9. If someone makes a claim for Universal Credit, their claim for any legacy benefit ends and will not be reinstated.

What happened

10. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
11. Mr X was a Housing Benefit (HB) claimant.
12. On 3 October 2018, the Council sent Mr X a letter about the introduction of Universal Credit (UC) in its area from 24 October 2018. The letter explained UC would replace six legacy benefits including HB. It explained residents would need to claim UC if there was a change in circumstances and it listed some examples of such changes.
13. On 19 October 2018, Mr X called the Council. He informed the Council the UC website stated his postcode was not affected by the UC change. The Council’s records show it advised Mr X to contact the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after 24 October 2018 if he had any changes in his circumstances.
14. On 27 October 2018, Mr X made a UC claim and he notified the Council. Mr X’s HB stopped because of his new UC claim.
15. In November 2018, Mr X called the Council and informed it he had claimed UC in error. Mr X alleged the Council wrongly advised him to claim UC when he had no changes in his circumstances. Mr X asked the Council to restore his HB and Tax Credits. The Council advised Mr X a person’s legacy benefits stops when UC is claimed. The Council said it received notification from the DWP that Mr X withdrew his UC claim. The Council said it would clarify matters with the DWP about reinstating his HB claim.
16. Between January and March 2019, Mr X informed the Council on several occasions he was financially worse off being on UC. Mr X maintained he was misinformed by the Council and told to claim UC.
17. In June 2019, the Citizens Advice Bureau made a formal complaint to the Council on behalf of Mr X. Mr X said after he received the UC leaflet from the Council in October 2018, he called the Council and a member of its staff advised him to claim UC. Mr X said when he attended his UC claim appointment, he was informed by the DWP he had claimed UC in error. This was because there was no change in his circumstances. Mr X said the DWP told him it held a meeting with the Council and the Council admitted it was at fault and could restore Mr X’s HB claim. Mr X complained the Council did not restore his HB claim and he was financially worse off on UC. Mr X requested an award of compensation from the Council for giving him the wrong advice to claim UC.
18. In January 2020, the Citizens Advice Bureau chased the Council for its response to Mr X’s complaint.
19. In February 2020, the Council issued its stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for its delay in responding. The Council explained UC was introduced in its area on 24 October 2018 for its working age residents who had changes in their circumstances. The Council explained it sent out UC leaflets to its residents. It apologised if Mr X had misinterpreted the information in the leaflet which led to him claiming UC. The Council said once a person claims UC, they will no longer be entitled to HB. It confirmed Mr X contacted the Council after he made his UC claim, at which point his HB claim stopped. The Council said the UC leaflet to Mr X in October 2018 did not advise him to claim UC, so it was unable to consider any compensation. It said although in November 2018, the Council did not fully clarify the situation during a telephone call, it informed Mr X to continue with the UC claim he had started.
20. Mr X was unhappy it took the Council almost one year to acknowledge and respond to his complaint. Mr X also disputed that he misinterpreted the UC letter as stated in the Council’s stage 1 response. Mr X maintained it was the Council’s staff who advised him to claim UC despite the fact he had no changes in his circumstances. He requested the Council escalate his complaint.
21. In March 2020, the Council contacted the DWP. This was to clarify some new changes in the DWP’s processes which might have made it possible for some cases to have been transferred back onto HB. The Council notified Mr X it was awaiting a response from the DWP. The Council arranged a meeting with Mr X to complete some HB application forms and discuss his case. The Council placed Mr X’s complaint on hold pending the outcome of the meeting.
22. On 16 March 2020, a meeting was held between the Council and Mr X. The Council did not discuss Mr X’s case about restoring his HB claim. This was because there was an ongoing discussion between the Council and the DWP about Mr X’s UC entitlement. The Council asked Mr X to provide supporting documents and complete a new HB application form in the event the DWP decided to end his UC claim.
23. In April 2020, the Council in its stage 2 response apologised again for the delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. The Council explained it did not formally register his complaint with its complaints team in a timely manner. The Council said it had reminded its staff of its complaints process. The Council said it was still waiting for the DWP’s decision about Mr X’s UC entitlement. It explained it had no control over that decision. The Council advised Mr X to contact the DWP, request an update of his case and confirm if it would transfer Mr X back onto HB. The Council confirmed it had asked Mr X to complete a new HB application form in preparation for reinstating his HB claim. The Council said it would contact Mr X again once the situation was resolved.
24. In mid-April 2020, the Council sought internal legal advice and received the DWP’s decision. The Council confirmed Mr X could not withdraw his UC claim and it could not restore his HB claim. The Council notified Mr X. He was unhappy and maintained the Council’s wrong advice to him had caused him financial loss since he claimed UC.
25. In its final response, the Council said it reviewed the telephone call records between Mr X and the Council and it found no evidence the Council gave Mr X wrong advice. The Council accepted it was unclear if Mr X could reclaim HB and the delay in handling his complaint. The Council offered to pay Mr X £500 for the anxiety and inconvenience it caused Mr X.
26. Mr X did not accept the Council’s £500 offer. He said the financial loss he suffered because of the Council’s wrong advice to claim UC was more than £500. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. Mr X alleged the Council gave him wrong advice to claim UC during a telephone contact to it. In response to my enquiries the Council said it does not retain voice recordings of telephone calls, so I cannot know exactly what the officers told Mr X. However, the Council has provided notes of the telephone calls between Mr X and the Council which do not record that the officer told Mr X to claim UC. Furthermore, the Council’s leaflet clearly explains residents should claim UC only if there was a change in circumstances. So, on balance, I consider the Council provided sufficient information for Mr X to know when he should claim UC.
28. Mr X also alleged the DWP informed him the Council admitted it was at fault for advising Mr X to claim UC, there was no evidence to support this allegation.
29. From the meeting the Council held with Mr X in March 2020, the Council gave Mr X the impression he could reclaim his HB. The Council asked Mr X to complete a new HB application form and it collected supporting documents from him. This was fault. The Council’s actions indicated Mr X could reclaim his HB. I find it would have been reasonable for the Council to have confirmed this was the case before it asked Mr X to complete a new HB application form. His expectations were raised because of the Council’s actions.
30. The Council failed to formally register Mr X’s complaint in a timely manner. It took the Council almost a year to complete and issue a final response to Mr X’s complaint. This was a significant delay and caused Mr X distress and time and trouble chasing an outcome to his complaint.
31. The Council accepts the delays in handling Mr X’s complaint and the confusion it caused to Mr X about reclaiming his HB. The Council has apologised to Mr X. It offered Mr X £500 as a financial remedy. This is proportionate and appropriate and in accordance with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to pay Mr X the £500 financial remedy it previously offered him. This is for the distress and time and trouble caused by the delay in dealing with his complaint. It is also in recognition of the Council’s lack of clarity about Mr X reclaiming Housing Benefit.
33. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the above actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find evidence of some fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman