Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint the Council has demanded payment of £3957 from her for a Housing Benefit overpayment. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to appeal to a statutory tribunal at the relevant time if she wished to dispute the Council’s Housing Benefit decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains in February 2020 the Council has demanded payment of £3957 from her for a Housing Benefit overpayment, and its officers she spoke to would not give her their names when she asked – one first name, one surname. Mrs B says she knew nothing about the outstanding debt until February 2020 and she is not even sure she owes the money.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered what Mrs B said in her complaint and some correspondence from the Council. I also gave MRs B an opportunity to comment on a draft before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The documents the Council sent us shows it decide in November 2013 it had overpaid Mrs B Housing Benefit of £5934 because she had not told it she became a student from September 2011 and received a bursary. This amounted to a material change of circumstances Mrs B was obliged by law to tell the Council about.
8. Mrs B asked the Council to review its decision in January 2014. The Council partly upheld her challenge, and revised the overpayment to £3957, which meant the original appeal right lapsed, but it was open to Mrs B to start the review and appeal process again. The Council explained how to do this.
9. In April 2016 Mrs B asked the Council for information about how the overpayment was calculated, and the Council replied with the relevant information in July 2016. In the same letter it referred to an earlier fraud interview and a penalty Mrs B had also asked for information about.
10. Mrs B’s complaint is late because she has evidently know about the overpayment and outstanding debt since 2014, and corresponded with the Council about it in 2016. She has not said she paid the debt meantime, or referred to another appeal which could have changed the amount of debt or removed it. Although the Council might have pursued payment more quickly its delay does not cause
    Mrs B any extra injustice we could reasonably investigate. It is plain Mrs B knew about the debt in 2014 and in 2016, and it would have been reasonable for her to either have appealed again or made arrangements to pay it back.
11. There is no injustice to Mrs B from officers not giving her their full names when she called; each of them gave a name which would be enough for her to say who she spoke to if there had been any doubt about that afterwards.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late and it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to appeal to a statutory tribunal at the relevant time if she wished to dispute the Council’s Housing Benefit decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman