Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error in the way the Council sought recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the Council has already provided a fair response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he complained about a housing benefit overpayment relating to his late mother. Mr X wants the Council to uphold all his complaints.

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:

• the Council has offered a fair response, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s complaints to the Council and the Council’s response. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In January Mr X reported the death of his mother. He provided his name and address as the executor. By the time the Council received the notification it had already paid housing benefit until February. This meant there was a housing benefit overpayment of £224. All housing benefit overpayments must be repaid unless they have been caused by an official error.
5. The Council asked for repayment. Unfortunately, due to a Council error, it sent all the letters about the overpayment to Mr X’s mother’s address. This happened because the Council failed, in January, to note Mr X’s details as the executor. Due to the error Mr X did not know about the overpayment until May by which time the estate had been distributed. Mr X complains the Council still sought recovery even after he explained the estate had been distributed.
6. Mr X’s MP contacted the Council. The Council then realised its error. It waived the overpayment because of its failure to send the letters to the correct address. It confirmed the overpayment was correct (but now waived), explained what had happened and what had gone wrong, apologised and said it would carry out training and procedural changes.
7. Mr X remains dissatisfied. He says the Council has not addressed all his points and has not upheld all the complaints he made.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already provided a fair remedy. It has apologised, explained what went wrong and explained the steps it is taking to improve its service. It also waived recovery of the overpayment. This is a fair response and there is nothing more we would ask it to do. The Council has addressed all of Mr X’s points and, while it did not uphold every point, that does not mean it has failed to provide an adequate response or that an investigation is needed.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman