Summary: Mr X complained about the Council recovering an overpayment from his housing benefit following allegations of fraud in 2014. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because housing benefit overpayments carry a right of appeal to an independent tribunal and Mr X could have appealed when he was notified of the overpayment. We received his complaint outside the normal 12-month time limit for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council pursued him for benefit fraud in 2014 which he says he did not commit. He was notified of an overpayment of benefit in 2017 and he says his landlord was responsible. He wants the Council to remove the overpayment and repay him for the amounts which he has paid back so far.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he was bullied and threatened by the Council into admitting benefit fraud for housing benefit paid to his landlord in 2014. He says he has been forced to repay the overpayment and has had additional costs added to this.
7. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints about matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before they complained to us. This restriction applies to Mr X’s complaint and it was reasonable for him to complain to us when he received notification of the overpayment.
8. We would normally expect someone to appeal against a decision for which there is a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. In this case the Social Security Appeal Tribunal is the body which considers overpayment decisions, and it was reasonable for Mr X to use this remedy at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because housing benefit overpayments carry a right of appeal to an independent tribunal and Mr X could have appealed when he was notified of the overpayment. We received his complaint outside the normal 12-month time limit for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman