Summary: We shall not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council seeking repayment of some housing benefit. This is chiefly because the complaint is late. It is also because Miss X had the right to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s actions related to her housing benefit claim. She says this resulted in her having to move home and that she has suffered stress from the Council seeking payment.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Miss X provided and copy complaint correspondence the Council supplied. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

8. In 2011 the Council told Miss X she had received too much housing benefit and should repay some. Miss X disagreed with the Council at the time and later. Around 2011 Miss X provided some information about her earnings, which she believed should have resulted in the Council deciding it had not overpaid. The Council believed the information still showed Miss X had received too much, but the overpayment was smaller than it had originally calculated. Miss X and the Council have communicated about this dispute at various times since 2011. In 2019 Miss X complained formally to the Council about the matter. The Council’s response apologised for sending some letters to addresses where it had known Miss X no longer lived and for sending her some information about another person. However, the Council still said Miss X owed it money.
9. The heart of this complaint is Miss X’s view that the Council is wrong in believing she owes money. Miss X has known for many years that she disagrees with the Council about this. She was first aware of the matter in 2011. In May 2012 Miss X knew she was dissatisfied the Council was demanding £973.86 and she was aware in June 2015 when the Council set out its calculation of why it still believed she owed that amount. Miss X did not complain to us until January 2021. Therefore the restriction described in paragraph 3 applies.
10. I have considered whether there are good reasons to accept the complaint late. However, I consider Miss X, who was evidently able to pursue matters, could reasonably have complained to us many years ago about her disagreement with the Council. Miss X did not send the Council a formal complaint until January 2019. In March 2019 the Council’s final response in March 2019 signposted her to our service. So the Council’s handling of the formal complaint did not delay matters unduly. Even after then, Miss X did not complain to us for nearly two years. I note Miss X states she complained to us because the Council sought the payment again in 2020. However, the Council’s final complaint response in 2019 had made clear the Council still believed Miss X owed the money, so it was reasonable to expect it would pursue the matter. Overall, I do not see good reason to accept the complaint so late.
11. Responding to a draft of this decision, Miss X said she did not complain to the Ombudsman sooner because: she had continued to try to resolve the matter directly with the Council; she asked the Council how to complain in 2015; only when the Council gave her copies of all the correspondence and documents about her case in 2018 did she have all the information she needed to complain to the Council and then to us; and the Council’s final response in March 2019 went to her ‘spam’ email folder and she did not see it until the end of 2020.
12. I note those points. I realise Miss X received documents in 2018, including copies of letters she had not previously seen. However, the key point is that Miss X knew in 2011-2012, and between then and 2015, that the Council wanted her to pay money she thought she did not owe and she did not believe the Council was handling the matter well. Those are the central parts of her complaint. Miss X could have made that complaint many years earlier. It was not necessary to await the information she received in 2018 before complaining. Also, if Miss X had asked the Council how to complain in 2015, she would have known she had seemingly received no response, so could reasonably have pursued the matter further then.
13. In February 2019, Miss X knew she had asked the Council to take her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure and she knew she had not seen a reply. Miss X knew the Council’s stage 1 response had still argued she owed the money. So there was no reason to believe the issue would go away. I consider that, in the circumstances, Miss X could reasonably have either checked her spam email folder or contacted the Council to chase a response, either of which would have led to the realisation the Council’s response was in the spam folder.
14. Overall, I am not persuaded it was necessary for Miss X to wait around ten years before complaining to us. I still do not consider there are good reasons to accept the complaint so late.
15. Even if there were good reason to accept the complaint late, I do not consider it likely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about whether Miss X gave the Council enough information nearly ten years ago for it to remove all the alleged overpayment. As that is central to the complaint, this is also a reason for not proposing to investigate now.
16. Another factor here is that the tribunal described in paragraph 5 can consider appeals about housing benefit overpayments. Miss X no longer has the right to appeal because the time limit has passed. The Council sent letters about the appeal right. It is not clear whether Miss X received that information at the relevant time. If she did not receive it, it is not clear whether that resulted solely from fault by the Council (sending letters describing appeal rights to an address it knew Miss X had left) or if any of the letters went to an address the Council reasonably believed to be Miss X’s current address at the time.
17. Had Miss X complained to us sooner, as she reasonably could have, if we had found that any fault by the Council had impeded Miss X’s appeal right, we might have asked the Council to reissue the decision and reinstate the appeal right (though the Council would not have had to agree). However, as Miss X complained to us so many years after the event, it seems disproportionate to try to clarify now the points in this paragraph. For this reason also I shall not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is chiefly because the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman