Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s benefit claims. This is because the Council’s response to it already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about Council delay in assessing his claim for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP), the poor customer service he received from call centre staff and the housing benefit overpayment he has to repay. He wants the Council to pay reasonable compensation for the stress caused to him and for the overpayment to be written off.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council properly dealt with Mr X’s complaint about his housing benefit overpayment by carrying out a review and referring Mr X to his appeal rights to the tribunal. This issue falls outside our jurisdiction because Mr X has appeal rights we would reasonable expect him to use.
8. In confirming a further DHP award has been made, the Council apologised for its delay in dealing with the claim, explained there is no statutory deadline and why his claim had taken longer than its own guidance time limit on this occasion. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint about the poor customer service he received from staff at the call centre. It offered, and Mr X accepted, a payment of £300 in recognition of this fault. Even if we investigated this matter, we would be unlikely to recommend any further compensation than that already paid to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s response to it already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman