Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council is trying to make him pay £153 for a housing benefit overpayment that he knows nothing about. He says the Council is hounding him for money he does not owe. He wants the debt removed and compensation.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the correspondence from 2015/16 between Mr X and the Council about the overpayment. I also considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing benefit disputes

6. If someone disagrees with a housing benefit decision they can ask for a review or appeal to the tribunal. If they have a review, and are unhappy with the decision, they can appeal to the tribunal. The law says people should appeal within one month of the date of the decision they think is wrong.

What happened

7. In 2015 the Council asked Mr X to repay a housing benefit overpayment of £431. I have seen the letters Mr X sent to challenge the decision including an email he sent in January 2016. Mr X says the Council did not respond to any of his review requests or challenges. He says he heard nothing more for five years.
8. The Council wrote to Mr X in March 2016 to say it had reviewed its decision and reduced the overpayment to £170. The Council said Mr X had one month to appeal to the tribunal if he disagreed with the new decision. I have seen a copy of this letter.
9. Mr X did not appeal to the tribunal but in April 2016 he paid £16.37 towards the overpayment. This reduced the overpayment to £153. He paid by BACS and the Council placed the payment in his overpayment account.
10. The Council is now asking Mr X to pay the outstanding £153 and says it may involve debt collectors. It has invited Mr X to contact the Council to set up a payment plan. The Council apologised for the delay in taking further action to recover the overpayment.
11. Mr X disputes the overpayment and says the Council had not previously told him about it. He says there has been an official error and the Council is trying to make him pay money he does not owe. Mr X denies making any payment towards the overpayment. He says he would not have made a payment because he disputed the overpayment.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal in 2016 after the Council reduced the overpayment. If Mr X continued to dispute the overpayment then it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about overpayments. The tribunal would have decided if Mr X had been overpaid by £170 and whether it was recoverable. In addition, the Council clearly notified Mr X of his appeal rights. Mr X continues to say the overpayment was caused by an official but that was a matter for him to have taken to the tribunal in 2016.
13. Mr X denies getting a response to any of his challenges but I have seen the review reply and the Council sent it to the correct address. And, if Mr X did not get the response, he could have chased the Council for a reply in 2016.
14. Mr X made a payment towards the overpayment in April 2016. He has no memory of making the payment but it is listed on his bank statement and the overpayment balance fell by the amount of the payment.
15. It would have been better if the Council had chased Mr X for the remaining debt more quickly but, as the money is owed, this does not require an investigation. I say the money is owed because Mr X did not make a successful appeal to challenge the remaining overpayment.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman