Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed passing a housing benefit appeal to the tribunal. This is because the benefit decision has been reversed, there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council delayed passing her housing benefit appeal to the tribunal. She says the Council has persecuted her and there has been a data breach.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• the matter has been resolved, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I found out the Council has reversed its decision and awarded housing benefit. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing benefit disputes

5. If someone disagrees with a housing benefit decision they can ask for a review or appeal to the independent tribunal. If they ask for an appeal the Council will still reconsider the case before passing it to the tribunal.

What happened

6. On 23 October the Council decided Mrs X was not entitled to housing benefit. On 5 November Mrs X said she wanted to appeal to the tribunal. The Council treated it as a review request. The Council confirmed its original decision not to award benefit on 13 November. Mrs X re-lodged her appeal on 15 November.
7. In response to the complaint the Council said the appeals team was looking at Mrs X’s appeal. It explained that Mrs X needed to provide some further information. In a later reply the Council apologised for stating that Mrs X had initially misrepresented her claim. The Council said there was no evidence to support this statement.
8. In February the Council reversed its decision and decided Mrs X is entitled to housing benefit. It has not passed the appeal to the tribunal because it has changed the decision in Mrs X’s favour and offered fresh appeal rights.
9. As part of her complaint Mrs X has referred to a data breach.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
11. The Council has changed its original decision and decided Mrs X is entitled to housing benefit. There is no need for case to be passed to the tribunal.
12. There is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council should have treated the first appeal on 5 November as an appeal. But, if it had done this it would still have needed to review the claim first and ask Mrs X for more information. The failure to treat the first appeal as an appeal added ten days to the process. The impact of a ten day delay is not serious enough to require an investigation. In addition, the Council has apologised for its inappropriate comment.
13. Mrs X says there has been a data breach. Mrs X can raise this with the Information Commissioner. It is reasonable that she should do this because the Information Commissioner is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice, the Council has awarded housing benefit and Mrs X can appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman