Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover a Housing Benefit overpayment as there is no evidence of fault in the way it was made.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrote to him in March 2021, telling him he had received an over payment of Housing Benefit for a period 2010-2011. Mr X says he cannot afford to make this re payment and also because of the delay in recovering this overpayment, he is unable to challenge the decision.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council wrote to him in March 2021, telling him he had received an over payment of Housing Benefit. Mr X says this overpayment was for a period in 2010-2011 and when he got this letter, he contacted the Council, but did not resolve the overpayment.
6. Mr X complained to the Council when it began to recover the overpayment from his earnings through a Direct Earnings Attachment (DEA). Mr X says he could not afford the deductions from his salary, because he was working part time, and he could not challenge the overpayment claim because of the delay in him becoming aware of it.
7. The Council says it initially wrote to Mr X in 2011 about the overpayment and got no response from Mr X. The Council says when it became aware of a new address for Mr X, it sent him an invoice in March 2021, telling him he had to repay the full sum of money. The Council says it never got a reply to this letter or any of the reminders and it then issued a DEA to recover the money.
8. In responding to his complaint, the Council explained how Mr X could ask for the monthly deductions to be reduced and it offered for him to send any evidence that he had not received the overpayment.
9. The law says there is no time limit on the length of time Council’s have in order to recover housing benefit debt. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make it’s decision. If we consider those processes were followed correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. Only a tribunal could determine whether or not the overpayment was recoverable.
11. Mr X lost his right of appeal to a tribunal because he did not notify the Council of his change of address. The delay in telling him of the overpayment was not therefore fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover a Housing Benefit overpayment as there is no evidence of fault in the way it was made.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman