Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to Miss X’s housing benefit. We would not be able to reach a clear enough view about whether an officer was rude; nor did that cause Miss X a significant enough injustice for us to investigate. Miss X could reasonably have appealed about her concerns about the Council’s decision she got too much housing benefit. We would also not be able to reach a clear enough view now on the latter point.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that:
1. A Council officer was rude to her during a telephone conversation;
2. The Council said her having a court order for joint residency of a relative did not affect its decision that she had received too much housing benefit (HB);
3. The Council did not properly investigate her complaint; and
4. The Council did not deal properly with her subject access request.
2. Miss X said this caused upset and the Council’s records wrongly say she communicated inappropriately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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)
5. 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) 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. As there was no recording of the telephone conversation and no independent witness, it is unlikely any investigation by us could reach a clear enough view about what was said and the way in which it was said. Also, any upset caused to Miss X by any discourtesy in a single telephone call would not be significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.
10. In 2015 the Council decided it had paid Miss X too much housing benefit (HB) since 2011, due to a change in her household. In 2021 Miss X asked the Council whether a joint residency court order she had had would affect the overpayment decision. The Council said that made no difference. Miss X wants the Ombudsman to confirm this because she did not trust the Council.
11. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide how much HB someone should get. That is for the Council and Tribunal to decide through the normal decision-making, review and appeal processes. So the restriction in paragraph 5 applies. Miss X could have appealed the Council’s decision about the overpayment to the tribunal at the relevant time, raising any matters relevant to her circumstances. The tribunal had the expertise to decide such points and could make binding decisions, whereas we can only make recommendations. Additionally, the overpayment decision was over 12 months before Miss X complained to the Ombudsman, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. Presumably Miss X knew the relevant information about her family circumstances at the time. I do not see good reason to investigate the complaint now. Also, even if Miss X had good reason for not pursuing this at the time, the Ombudsman could not reasonably expect to reach a clear enough view now on the Council’s decision-making so many years ago and on how any information about Miss X’s circumstances should have affected that decision-making. For these reasons, we shall not investigate this part of the complaint.
12. Miss X also says the Council did not properly handle her complaint about these matters. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
13. Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman also mentioned problems with the Council’s response to a subject access request. It would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate this point in isolation. This is more appropriately a matter for the Information Commissioner. The same applies to Miss X’s view that the Council’s records about her are inaccurate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would be disproportionate to try to investigate what happened on the telephone call and, in the circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider Miss X’s HB entitlement. The points about Miss X’s data are more appropriately for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman