Summary: Mr Y complained the City of London Corporation (the Corporation) unreasonably delayed dealing with his housing benefit claim and his request for a reconsideration of its decision. He also said it failed to respond to his complaint. As a result, Mr Y said he experienced distress and uncertainty. The Corporation was at fault for failing to respond to his complaint. It was also at fault for its delay in deciding Mr Y’s housing benefit claim and his reconsideration request. It has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him an acknowledgement for the distress and uncertainty it caused him. It also agreed to review its appeals process and remind its staff of the timescales it is expected to follow when deciding housing benefit claims and reconsiderations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y about the Corporation’s handling of his housing benefit claim. He said it:
• failed to respond to Mr Y’s complaint;
• unreasonably delayed dealing with his housing benefit claim; and
• took too long to deal with his request for a reconsideration of its decision to cancel his housing benefit.

As a result, Mr Y said he was in rents arrears and his landlord has started eviction proceedings. He said this and the Corporation’s actions caused him distress and uncertainty.

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’. 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)
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) 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)
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr Y’s complaint to the Corporation;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he and Mr Y provided;
• considered the information the Corporation provided in response to my enquiries; and
• given Mr X and the Corporation the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. Housing benefit helps people on low incomes to pay their rent. It is a means tested benefit, taking both capital and income into account. Claimants are responsible for ensuring they update the council with any changes in their circumstances. Failure to do so can affect the housing benefit paid.
7. The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 says the Council:
• can ask a person who has made a claim to provide document, information and evidence that may reasonably be required by it to determine the person’s entitlement to housing benefit.
• must make a decision about housing benefit in writing. The decision notice must also advise claimants of their rights to ask for more information and to appeal. If a claimant disagrees with a decision, they can ask the council to review it. The council must then review the decision again.
8. Where an appeal has been reviewed by the council and they have decided not to review the decision advantageously to the appellant, the appellant has the right to make further representations to the council for up to a month following the review. If the decision is not reviewed again advantageously, the appeal must be passed to the tribunal. (The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001)
9. If the decision remains unchanged the council must pass the matter to the tribunal “as soon as reasonably practicable”. (Rule 24(1A) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008)
10. In January 2020 we published a focus report on housing benefits. This sets out that regulations do not specify how long councils should take to reply to housing benefit appeals. But they must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable. Our principles of good administrative practice encourage councils to make timely decisions and proactively explain the reasons for any delays. As a benchmark we consider councils should aim to process appeals within four weeks.

Corporation’s complaint policy

11. The Corporations policy says it will response to complaint within 10 working days. It also says it will tell complainants if there are any delays in meeting this timescale and when a response will be provided.

What happened

12. Mr Y moved into the Corporation’s area in 2020. He made an application for housing benefit to the Corporation in July 2020. In support of his application, he gave it a tenancy agreement with a start date in March 2020 and a utility bill from May to July 2020.
13. Five weeks later the Corporation told Mr Y it needed more information to assess his claim. It said it would normally do a home visit to get this information, but this was not possible due to COVID-19 as Mr Y was shielding. It therefore asked Mr Y to clarify:
• his moving in date to the property because he had provided different dates in his application, communication with the Housing Benefit Officer and the Corporation’s Council Tax team;
• the agreement between his landlord and the property owner as these were not the same person or company; and
• the number of bedrooms in the property and information about his overnight care.
14. Mr Y complained on the same day to the Corporation. He said it had not responded to his application for five weeks. He explained he is terminally ill, and it should deal with his claim within five working days.
15. The Corporation acknowledged Mr Y’s complaint and said it would respond within two weeks.
16. A week after the Corporation’s request for information, Mr Y provided the information it had asked for.
17. In October 2020, the Corporation made its decision on Mr Y’s housing benefit. It assessed him as entitled to housing benefit but suspended his payments. It told Mr Y this was because Land Registry records showed he was the owner of his previous property which had no outstanding mortgage. It therefore asked him to provide a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to confirm he remains entitled to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). It also asked Mr Y to provide further evidence of his overnight care as the information he had provided was from a payroll company and not the organisation providing the care.
18. Mr Y provided information to the Corporation again. However, this did not explain what happened to the proceeds of sale of his property. And so, the Corporation asked him to provide information about this. It also told Mr Y that it was aware he had applied for Universal Credit and asked him to confirm if he was still in receipt of ESA.
19. Mr Y was unhappy the Corporation had not responded to his complaint. And so, he says he escalated his complaint to the Corporation’s Chief Executive.
20. In November 2020 the Corporation told Mr Y it could not accept his housing benefit claim. It said this was because:
• the previous agents of Mr Y’s property had told the Corporation they were still managing the property. The rent they charged was significantly lower than the amount Mr Y said he was liable for. It could therefore not accept his evidence of rent liability.
• It was not satisfied that Mr Y did not have capital in excess of £16,000. It said this was because Land Registry records showed he had signed over his interest in his previous property to a company in 2012. The Company’s accounts suggested it was not trading in 2013 and Mr Y was named in a ‘Change of Particular of Director’ in 2018. In addition, his letting agents provided the Corporation with a bank statement showing a balance of £75,000. It had considered the letting agents lack of online present and extensive support for Mr Y’s housing benefit claim, and it was therefore not satisfied he did not have access to the funds.
21. Mr Y disagreed with the Corporation’s view and asked it to reconsider its decision. At this stage, Mr Y’s local MP, support workers, Mr X, and local Councillors also made representations and asked the Corporation to reconsider its decision.
22. The Corporation said because of the representations received, it decided to involve an independent benefits expert to do its reconsideration of its decision for Mr Y’s housing benefit claim.
23. Mr Y brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. We considered his complaint and made enquiries to the Corporation. In response, the Corporation told us it has not yet decided the reconsideration. It also said it acknowledged it was at fault for its handling of Mr Y’s complaint, as it had failed to provide a response. It said this was due to an internal misunderstanding but is has since made its guidance clear to its managers to prevent this from happening again.
24. In addition, Mr X has told us that Mr X started receiving Universal Credit from December 2020. The DWP have therefore paid his housing costs from this date.

Analysis

Complaint’s handling

25. The Corporation did not respond to Mr Y’s complaints. It agreed it was at fault for its handling of Mr Y’s complaint and it has taken step to prevent this happening again. The Corporation was therefore at fault and I am satisfied this caused Mr Y some distress and uncertainty.

Was there a delay in the Corporation’s handling of Mr Y’s housing benefit claim?

26. There was fault by the Corporation which caused delays in assessing and deciding Mr Y’s housing benefit claim. This is because it should have made a decision on Mr Y’s housing benefit claim or asked for more information within 2 weeks of his application. It took the Corporation five weeks to respond to Mr Y and ask for more information.
27. In addition, when Mr Y provided the information to the Corporation, it took a further four weeks for it to decide his claim.
28. I acknowledge that due to COVID-19 and Mr Y’s telling the Corporation he was shielding, it could not do a home visit to Mr Y. It could therefore not follow its normal procedures. However, I have seen no good reason why it did not write to Mr Y sooner. Nor any reasons it took a further four weeks to make its decision. And so, this is fault, which caused a delay. As a result, Mr Y had rent arrears and his landlord started possession action, I am satisfied this caused Mr Y some distress and uncertainty.

Was there delay in the Corporation’s reconsideration of its decision?

29. The Corporation refused Mr Y’s housing benefit claim in November 2020. Mr Y disagrees with the reasons it provided and asked the Corporation to reconsider its decision.
30. Applying the timescale in paragraph 8, we would consider it reasonable to expect the Corporation to have completed the reconsideration within four weeks and then taken a further four weeks to deal with the appeal request. That would have been eight weeks in total. I acknowledge the Corporation’s view that an independent benefits expert may have been a suitable way to review its decision. However, it has now been over five months, and the Corporation has still not completed its reconsideration. This is fault.
31. I have considered the impact this lengthy delay had and continues to have on Mr Y. It clearly caused him significant distress and worry, and it continues to do so. However, I acknowledge Mr Y started receiving Universal Credit in December 2020, and so he has no additional worry about further rent arrears.
32. Mr Y was also put to time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Corporation and seeking help from Councillor’s, his MP, support workers and an advice agency to try to get it resolved.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice the Corporation caused to Mr Y, the Corporation has agreed to, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mr Y in writing for its failure to respond to his complaint and its delay in deciding and reconsidering his housing benefit claim;
2. Pay £300 to Mr Y, to use as he sees fit, to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused;
3. Pay Mr Y a further £200 to acknowledge time and trouble in trying to get the Corporation to comply with the law and its policy.
34. Within three months of the final decision the Corporation should also:
1. review its appeals process to ensure that no unreasonable delays are caused; and
2. remind its staff, who deals with housing benefit decisions and reconsiderations, of the timescales for housing benefit claims, decisions and reconsiderations, to ensure decision are made in a timely manner.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault leading to injustice. The Corporation has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman