London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 903)

Category : Benefits and tax > Housing benefit and council tax benefit

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 29 Jul 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint that an officer committed perjury. This is because the complaint involves matters that have formed part of legal proceedings and because the officer is not employed by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says an officer misrepresented his job title during a fraud interview and in court. She alleges the officer committed perjury. Ms X wants compensation and for the court to overturn her conviction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
  3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. In 2016 the Council asked Ms X to repay a housing benefit overpayment. Ms X appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal said she must repay the money.
  2. The Department for Work and Pension (DWP) carried out a fraud investigation and prosecuted Ms X. The court convicted and sentenced Ms X.
  3. Ms X says the fraud officer who interviewed her, and represented the DWP in court, misrepresented his job title. Ms X has accused him of perjury.
  4. Ms X complained to the Council. The Council explained the officer used the correct job title. It also said it could not investigate the officer’s actions because he is employed by the DWP.
  5. Ms X remains of the view the officer committed perjury. She wants to go back to court to clear her name and for the officer to be prosecuted. Ms X wants compensation.

Assessment

  1. I cannot start an investigation for the following reasons.
  2. The evidence presented by the fraud officer has been considered in court. The law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating any matter that has formed part of legal proceedings. The conduct of the officer forms part of legal proceedings so I cannot start an investigation.
  3. The Ombudsman has no power to overturn a criminal conviction. Only a court can overturn a conviction. In addition, the Ombudsman does not investigate allegations of crime. Ms X would need to report of allegation of perjury to the police.
  4. The Ombudsman investigates councils. He has no power to investigate the actions of the DWP or officers employed by the DWP.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I cannot start an investigation because I have no power to investigate any action that has formed part of legal proceedings and I cannot investigate the actions of the DWP.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings