Summary: Mr X complained about the Council giving incorrect advice about the implications of travelling abroad on his housing benefit claim in 2018. He says that he lost entitlement to his claim following changes in legislation after the advice was given. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it has re-instated Mr X’s claim following a decision from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. Mr X could appeal against the latest decision to an independent tribunal if he disagrees with it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained that he was given incorrect advice about how long he could go abroad for in 2018 without his housing benefit claim being affected. He booked a holiday for 13 weeks in 2019 and when he returned his housing benefit claim had been terminated because of changes in legislation in 2019. He wanted the Council to re-instate his claim to cover the shortfall in his benefit.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X asked the Council’s contact centre in November 2018 about how long they could go abroad without any effect on their housing benefit claim. He was informed incorrectly that 13 weeks was the limit. He booked flights for him and his wife in March 2019 and was later told that his housing benefit claim would be terminated when he returned because the maximum stay was 4 weeks. After a longer break he would need to make a new claim but changes by the DWP now meant he would have to apply for Universal Credit because his wife was under pensionable age.
7. Mr X complained to the Council for giving him incorrect advice. The Council’s investigation showed that he had made a further call to the contact centre in February 2019 in which he was given correct advice about the period which he could take abroad as being 4 weeks. The Council says this was before he booked the flights the following month and he could have chosen a shorter break at this point.
8. When Mr X returned from his holiday in early 2020 his housing benefit claim ended. The Council advised him he could appeal but it did not receive an appeal within the required period. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. The DWP subsequently allowed Mr X’s claim for Pension Credit as a pension-age couple even though Mrs X was under pension age. This allowed the Council to re-instate his housing benefit claim from when he returned from holiday in February 2020.
9. The Council paid a backdated payment of £3,603 to his landlord and re-instated his rights of appeal against its benefits decision.
10. There was fault in the Council giving incorrect advice in 2018. The fact that it corrected this before Mr X decided to take 13 weeks holiday in 2019 meant the decision to take this time was made with this knowledge. The Council gave correct advice later in 2019 that he would have to claim for universal credit as they were not a pensionable couple. The decision by the DWP was not one which the Council had influence over but it amended it’s action on his claim as a result.
11. I do not consider that there is sufficient remaining injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. If he is dissatisfied with the Council ‘s latest decision on his claim he has an opportunity to appeal to the independent benefits tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it has re-instated Mr X’s claim following a decision from the Department of Work and pensions and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. Mr X could appeal against the latest decision to an independent tribunal if he disagrees with it.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman