Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because part of the complaint is late and because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a housing benefit overpayment. He told the Council he was not liable to repay the money and he thought the issue had been resolved. Mr X wants the Council to refund all the money deducted to repay the overpayment.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the overpayment letters, the complaint replies and correspondence from 2017 and 2019. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council told Mr X about an overpayment in 2007. The Council took money from Mr X’s housing benefit until 2014 to recover it. The Council notified Mr X of more overpayments in 2013 and 2014. Each letter gave appeal rights. Mr X says he did not get any of the decision letters.
6. In 2014 the Council asked a debt collector to collect the outstanding overpayment. The debt collector was unsuccessful and returned the case. The Council wrote to Mr X in 2017 asking for payment. Mr X replied saying he was unaware of any overpayment and that, as the housing benefit had been paid to his landlord, the Council should seek payment from him.
7. In 2019 the Council again requested payment. It sent copies of the overpayment letters. It explained the debt was not statute barred and time limits would only apply to court action. It said it would take further recovery action if Mr X did not make a payment arrangement. Mr X repeated that he would not pay and the Council could not recover any money from him.
8. Mr X complained in 2021 after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) started deducting money from his Universal Credit (UC). The Council said it had no way to recover the money until he started claiming UC. It repeated it had sent decision letters and explained why it could recover the debt from Mr X rather than the landlord. It said it could have responded to Mr X’s last email in 2019 but this would only have repeated that it would recover the debt.
9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. This, at least in part, is a late complaint. Mr X has been aware of the overpayment since at least 2017 but he did not complain to us until 2021. Mr X could have complained in 2017 and 2019 as he knew the Council had not cancelled the overpayment. Mr X says he did not know what was going on but the Council did not tell him it had cancelled the overpayment so it reasonable to expect Mr X to have taken more action in 2017 or 2019.
10. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council sent each overpayment decision to the correct address and gave Mr X appeal rights. Mr X had a shared mail box but that does not mean there was fault by the Council. The Council has explained why the overpayment is recoverable from Mr X and told him he could make a late appeal to the tribunal. It also explained that it could not recover the debt until Mr X claimed UC and there was then a delay due to COVID-19.
11. The Council says it should have responded to Mr X’s final email in 2019. But, this has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. This is because the Council had told Mr X it would take enforcement action if he did not pay and Mr X had not received any notification that the Council had cancelled the overpayment. If the Council had responded again in 2019 it would just have repeated its previous position and it would have resumed recovery action once Mr X claimed UC. It is also reasonable to expect that if Mr X had received another email in 2019 that he would just have repeated his position that he was not going to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint because it is a late complaint and because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman